0:00:00.190,0:00:00.440
[Unofficial Transcript]
0:00:00.190,0:00:06.100
[Mr. Jordan] Don't have a witness!
[One Minute of Silence]
0:00:06.100,0:00:13.100
[Mr. Jordan] OK, now we're ready to get started.
[Mr. Jordan] The Subcommittee on Regulatory
0:01:10.120,0:01:17.120
Affairs will get rolling here. I will start
with an opening statement, and then, obviously,
0:01:17.830,0:01:20.100
the ranking member will have an opening statement,
and then we will get right to our witness.
0:01:20.100,0:01:22.900
We want to thank the deputy for being here
today.
0:01:22.900,0:01:27.240
Earlier this month, we learned that the unemployment
rate rose to 9.2 percent. Americans are struggling
0:01:27.240,0:01:32.250
because there just aren't enough jobs. As
I have said many times before in this subcommittee,
0:01:32.250,0:01:36.640
one reason explaining the stagnant jobs numbers
is the administration's stubborn determination
0:01:36.640,0:01:42.180
to issue multiple onerous regulations all
at once. The cumulative impacts of these regulations
0:01:42.180,0:01:45.120
are preventing American job creators from
putting people back to work.
0:01:45.120,0:01:49.880
As part of the committee's ongoing commitment
to promote job creation, today's hearing continues
0:01:49.880,0:01:54.220
our examination into Federal regulations that
are holding back economic growth and keeping
0:01:54.220,0:01:57.920
employers from getting Americans back employed,
back to work.
0:01:57.920,0:02:02.210
At the last hearing, this subcommittee focused
on EPA's permatorium on Appalachian coal and
0:02:02.210,0:02:06.150
the impact it is having on jobs in that region.
Today's hearing will examine the cumulative
0:02:06.150,0:02:12.350
effect of a series of EPA regulations that
will impact the Nation's power supply and
0:02:12.350,0:02:16.220
will hit particularly hard the areas of the
country that rely on coal for energy.
0:02:16.220,0:02:20.980
I am especially concerned about my home State
of Ohio, which is the Nation's fourth largest
0:02:20.980,0:02:26.650
consumer of coal, and depends on it to provide
power for its manufacturing base. These regulations
0:02:26.650,0:02:32.310
have been collectively referred to as EPA's
train wreck. They include changing the standards
0:02:32.310,0:02:36.810
of Cooling Water Intake Structures, altering
the mercury and air toxic standards for power
0:02:36.810,0:02:41.550
plants, known as utility MATS, and the CrossState
Air Pollution Rule, also known as the Transport
0:02:41.550,0:02:45.959
Rule, the new regulations of coal ash, and
finally lowering the national ambient air
0:02:45.959,0:02:51.340
quality standard for ozone, among other rules.
We have a chart that shows how all this is
0:02:51.340,0:02:55.940
coming together in the next few years. We
will seek to get at the impact this is going
0:02:55.940,0:03:00.569
to have on employers.
The jobkilling threat posed by these regulations
0:03:00.569,0:03:05.450
comes from the timing and expense of the various
mandates. By EPA's own analysis, these are
0:03:05.450,0:03:10.050
some of the most expensive rules on record.
For example, EPA estimates that the Utility
0:03:10.050,0:03:15.360
MACT Rule is projected to cost $10.9 billion
in 2016, and the Cooling Water Intake Rule
0:03:15.360,0:03:20.940
could cost as much as $4.8 billion a year.
NAAQS for ozone is projected to cost a staggering
0:03:20.940,0:03:25.270
$1 trillion in costs to manufacturers and,
according to the National Association of Manufacturers,
0:03:25.270,0:03:31.770
lead to 7.3 million jobs lost between 2020
and 2030.
0:03:31.770,0:03:36.020
The committee is deeply concerned as EPA developed
these regulations, it never took into account
0:03:36.020,0:03:40.709
the cumulative impact of its actions. The
North American Electric Reliability Corporation,
0:03:40.709,0:03:44.880
an organization charged with ensuring the
reliability of America's bulk power system,
0:03:44.880,0:03:50.330
warns that the EPA's regulations will remove
as much as 76 gigawatts of electrical capacity
0:03:50.330,0:03:55.190
by 2018. To put this in perspective, this
is enough electricity to power approximately
0:03:55.190,0:03:59.870
23 million homes forever.
Moreover, according to another study, just
0:03:59.870,0:04:05.879
the Utility MACT and Clean Air Transport Rules
alone will eliminate 1.44 million jobs from
0:04:05.879,0:04:12.520
2013 to 2020 due to the rising costs of energy.
In fact, this same study estimates that nationwide
0:04:12.520,0:04:18.180
electricity costs will increase by 11.5 percent.
Our State of Ohio and other Midwestern States
0:04:18.180,0:04:22.210
will be hit even harder.
EPA should have considered the cumulative
0:04:22.210,0:04:26.500
impact of these rules before acting in order
to minimize these negative impacts.
0:04:26.500,0:04:31.090
Let's make one thing clear: No one wants dirty
air. That is not what this hearing is about.
0:04:31.090,0:04:35.190
However, we do need to be smart about the
regulations that we as a country issue. It
0:04:35.190,0:04:40.020
appears from the lack of analysis on cumulative
regulatory effects conducted by the EPA that
0:04:40.020,0:04:44.480
there is a high chance the left hand doesn't
know what the right one is doing at the Environmental
0:04:44.480,0:04:47.840
Protection Agency.
The testimony we hear today will help us examine
0:04:47.840,0:04:51.940
what can be done better to avoid these regulatory
train wreck situations. Our economy has been
0:04:51.940,0:04:56.400
in trouble for a long time now. And the least
we can do here in Washington is make sure
0:04:56.400,0:05:00.550
the government is not causing the problem.
Americans want to get back to work, and we
0:05:00.550,0:05:05.160
need to be certain that we are not stopping
them. I thank the witnesses for appearing.
0:05:05.160,0:05:08.020
I look forward to hearing from our all witnesses
today.
0:05:08.020,0:05:11.889
With that, I will now recognize my good friend
and distinguished member from Ohio, Mr. Kucinich.
0:05:11.889,0:05:18.889
[Mr. Kucinich]
0:05:26.680,0:05:33.680
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank all the witnesses who will
0:05:33.760,0:05:38.900
be testifying today about a critical issue
facing America, the protection of clean air
0:05:38.900,0:05:42.260
and clean water, on which we depend every
single day.
0:05:42.260,0:05:48.990
Today, we will once again take a look at the
role the EPA plays in supporting these goals.
0:05:48.990,0:05:54.070
Air toxics from coalfired power plants cause
or contribute to devastating health problems,
0:05:54.070,0:05:59.620
ranging from asthma attacks to premature death
from cardiovascular disease, stroke, and cancer.
0:05:59.620,0:06:04.410
One air toxic, mercury, damages the developing
brains of fetuses, infants, and small children,
0:06:04.410,0:06:09.250
robbing them of the opportunity to fully develop
intellectually and physically.
0:06:09.250,0:06:14.470
Coalburning emissions of sulfur oxides and
nitrogen oxides help fuel our Nation's asthma
0:06:14.470,0:06:20.190
problem and can increase heart attacks. The
burning of coal is also a major contributor
0:06:20.190,0:06:27.190
to the environmental, national security, and
economic crisis that is global climate change.
0:06:30.360,0:06:37.350
The combustion of coal produces a tremendous
amount of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas
0:06:37.350,0:06:40.780
that contributes to increased trapping of
heat in our atmosphere.
0:06:40.780,0:06:45.400
In fact, coal accounts for approximately 20 percent
of all our greenhouse gas emissions. It would
0:06:45.400,0:06:51.610
be difficult to underestimate the urgency
of shutting down coal power plants immediately
0:06:51.610,0:06:55.360
for this reason alone.
These health and environmental consequences
0:06:55.360,0:07:00.639
from toxic pollution are why the EPA is developing
tougher safeguards to protect Americans. One
0:07:00.639,0:07:06.180
proposed rule on mercury and air toxics alone
would be estimated to save as many as 17,000
0:07:06.180,0:07:13.139
lives every year by 2015, to prevent up to
120,000 cases of childhood asthma.
0:07:13.139,0:07:17.750
One of the witnesses here to testify today
represents the American Electric Power Company,
0:07:17.750,0:07:23.410
which is headquartered in Columbus, Ohio.
AEP is also one of our Nation's biggest polluters.
0:07:23.410,0:07:26.780
Another one of Ohio's polluters, First Energy
Corporation, which owns the Lakeshore Plant
0:07:26.780,0:07:32.699
in Cleveland, near my own district, is identified
as the Nation's sixth most harmful plant for
0:07:32.699,0:07:37.610
lowincome communities and communities of color.
Thanks in part to AEP and First Energy, the
0:07:37.610,0:07:42.880
State of Ohio has more coalfired generating
capacity than any other State in the Nation.
0:07:42.880,0:07:49.530
Ohio's electric sector also has the dubious
honor of ranking first in the amount of toxic
0:07:49.530,0:07:56.090
air pollution emitted in 2009, emitting more
than 44.5 million tons of harmful chemicals,
0:07:56.090,0:08:00.500
which accounted for 65 percent of the State's
pollution and 12 percent of toxic pollution
0:08:00.500,0:08:05.240
from all U.S. power plants.
Ohio also ranked third among all States in
0:08:05.240,0:08:12.240
mercury air pollution from power plants, with
about 3,980 pounds emitted in 2009, which
0:08:12.509,0:08:17.190
accounted for 76 percent of the State's mercury
air pollution and 6 percent of the U.S. electric
0:08:17.190,0:08:21.190
sector pollution.
AEP has also lobbied against the Environmental
0:08:21.190,0:08:25.360
Protection Agency's current efforts to regulate
power plant pollution and is pushing legislation
0:08:25.360,0:08:31.229
to weaken and delay these regulations.
I look forward to hearing from AEP today about
0:08:31.229,0:08:36.310
how they can justify the tragic and destructive
side effects that coalfired power plants wreak
0:08:36.310,0:08:40.640
upon us, as well as what steps they are taking
to curb emissions of toxic air pollution.
0:08:40.640,0:08:44.940
While it is consistent with the history of
big business to kick and scream about having
0:08:44.940,0:08:49.140
to minimize social and environmental harms
they cause, we should not underestimate the
0:08:49.140,0:08:55.070
entrepreneurial ability of America's electric
sector to invest, retrofit, and construct
0:08:55.070,0:08:59.209
clean energy generation while maintaining
system reliability.
0:08:59.209,0:09:03.420
In fact, when they upgrade our Nation's electric
generation infrastructure to comply with new
0:09:03.420,0:09:08.550
regulations, their capital investments will
help drive economic growth and create jobs.
0:09:08.550,0:09:12.940
According to a study by the Political Economy
Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts,
0:09:12.940,0:09:18.120
two of the proposed EPA regulations, Clean
Air Transport Rule and the new Mercury and
0:09:18.120,0:09:24.270
Air Toxic Standards, could stimulate the creation
of 1.4 million jobs over the next 5 years
0:09:24.270,0:09:27.220
in the pollution controls, engineering, and
construction fields.
0:09:27.220,0:09:30.620
Congress passed the Clean Air Act and the
Clean Water Act because the American public
0:09:30.620,0:09:33.800
demanded it. The American people demanded
it because they didn't like their children
0:09:33.800,0:09:38.680
to inhale and drink and die from toxic compounds
from which even the most diligent parent can't
0:09:38.680,0:09:42.480
protect his or her child. Nothing about this
equation has changed.
0:09:42.480,0:09:46.790
We must allow the EPA to continue to fulfill
its mandate to protect our water and the air.
0:09:46.790,0:09:51.220
And I look forward to hearing from the EPA
today about how it continues to fulfill its
0:09:51.220,0:09:53.720
promise.
We can't get into a position where it is either
0:09:53.720,0:09:58.410
jobs or a clean environment. We have to insist
that we have to have both. And the approach
0:09:58.410,0:10:04.029
of the 21st century that is going to be economically
viable and economically successful and that
0:10:04.029,0:10:08.959
will help grow our economy is to be able to
catch the wave of new technologies that can
0:10:08.959,0:10:14.120
help use the resources we have now and do
it in such a way that we protect the quality
0:10:14.120,0:10:16.950
of the air and the water.
With that, I want to thank the chair, and
0:10:16.950,0:10:18.300
I yield back.
[Mr. Jordan] I thank the gentleman.
0:10:18.300,0:10:25.300
Members have 7 days to submit opening statements.
We now welcome our first witness, Mr. Bob
0:10:25.790,0:10:29.010
Perciasepe.
Great name to say, like saying Sheboygan,
0:10:29.010,0:10:31.880
or one of those names you like to say.
[Mr. Kucinich] Like Kucinich.
0:10:31.880,0:10:36.290
[Mr. Jordan] Like Kucinich. Exactly.
He is the deputy administrator of the Environmental
0:10:36.290,0:10:37.250
Protection Agency.
We feel privileged to have you here today,
0:10:37.250,0:10:40.170
Mr. Perciasepe.
And pursuant to the rules of the committee,
0:10:40.170,0:10:44.190
all witnesses are sworn in. So please rise
and raise your right hand.
0:10:44.190,0:10:47.420
Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony
you are going to give this committee will
0:10:47.420,0:10:50.209
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth?
0:10:50.209,0:10:51.750
Answer in the affirmative. Let the record
show that the witness has answered in the
0:10:51.750,0:10:54.500
affirmative.
And the floor is yours, Mr. Administrator.
0:10:54.500,0:11:01.500
Go ahead.
[Mr. Perciasepe] Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
0:11:02.870,0:11:05.870
and Ranking Member Kucinich.
[Mr. Kucinich] Would the gentleman please
0:11:05.870,0:11:08.350
speak directly into the mike? That would be
helpful.
0:11:08.350,0:11:14.339
[Mr. Perciasepe] Yes, sir. I will get a little
closer there. I see what you are talking about.
0:11:14.339,0:11:18.000
I want to thank you for inviting me today.
And I appreciate the opportunity to appear
0:11:18.000,0:11:21.959
before you.
When you ask whether EPA regulations will
0:11:21.959,0:11:27.360
cause the lights to go out, I want to be able
to assure you that the answer is no. We do
0:11:27.360,0:11:32.300
not have to choose between breathing clean
air and running an air conditioner or turning
0:11:32.300,0:11:35.980
on the lights at night.
The power plant rules that EPA is developing
0:11:35.980,0:11:40.029
are necessary to protect public health and
the environment from pollution produced by
0:11:40.029,0:11:43.740
these plants, especially the oldest, dirtiest,
and least efficient of them.
0:11:43.740,0:11:48.720
We are not the first administration to recognize
the need to clean up power plants and to issue
0:11:48.720,0:11:55.089
rules to address that need. In fact, since
1989, when President George H.W. Bush proposed
0:11:55.089,0:12:00.630
what became the Clean Air Act amendments of
1990, power plant cleanup has been the continuous
0:12:00.630,0:12:05.610
policy of the United States Government under
two Democratic and two Republican Presidents.
0:12:05.610,0:12:10.510
While past EPA rules have made progress in
reducing the harmful effects of pollution,
0:12:10.510,0:12:14.800
more remains to be done to ensure that all
Americans have the clean environment to which
0:12:14.800,0:12:18.610
they are entitled.
EPA's recent and upcoming actions to control
0:12:18.610,0:12:23.160
pollution from power plants will achieve major
public health benefits for Americans that
0:12:23.160,0:12:28.240
are significantly greater than the costs.
These pollutionreducing rules are affordable,
0:12:28.240,0:12:32.740
and they are technologically achievable.
There is tremendous public support for moving
0:12:32.740,0:12:38.480
forward with these rules. For instance, since
March, we have received over 800,000 comments
0:12:38.480,0:12:45.480
from across the country in support of regulating
mercury emission controls from power plants.
0:12:45.980,0:12:50.730
The CrossState Air Pollution Rule finalized
earlier this month illustrates significant
0:12:50.730,0:12:56.500
health benefits from reducing power plant
pollution. In a single year, 2014, this rule
0:12:56.500,0:13:03.500
is projected to produce benefits valued at
over $120 billion to up to $280 billion and
0:13:03.870,0:13:10.000
to avoid up to 34,000 premature deaths.
Our analysis and past experience indicate
0:13:10.000,0:13:15.829
that warnings from some of dire economic consequences
of moving forward with these important rules
0:13:15.829,0:13:22.220
are exaggerated at best. A publicly available
analysis shows that these rules are affordable.
0:13:22.220,0:13:27.610
This is corroborated by other outside groups
and by some in industry who recognize that
0:13:27.610,0:13:32.149
issuing the rules in the same time frame helps
provide power companies with the certainty
0:13:32.149,0:13:35.680
they need to make smart and costeffective
investments.
0:13:35.680,0:13:40.260
As we did more than two decades ago, we are
also hearing claims that our rules will lead
0:13:40.260,0:13:47.260
to potential adverse effects on electric reliability.
EPA's analysis projects that the agency's
0:13:48.610,0:13:53.600
rules will result in only a modest level of
retirements and that these retirements are
0:13:53.600,0:14:00.600
not expected to have adverse impact on electric
generation and resource adequacy.
0:14:00.600,0:14:03.910
Our rules will not cause the lights to go
out.
0:14:03.910,0:14:09.360
These studies are often based on incorrect
assumptions about the requirements of EPA
0:14:09.360,0:14:14.490
rules and are inconsistent with the actual
proposals that come out. In most cases, the
0:14:14.490,0:14:19.959
analyses were performed before many of the
regulations were even proposed. Simply put,
0:14:19.959,0:14:23.990
many of these studies are not based on the
reality of what the agency is actually proposing
0:14:23.990,0:14:27.670
to do.
In closing, I would like to suggest that the
0:14:27.670,0:14:32.220
subcommittee should be clear about what is
at stake here, as those who have stalled in
0:14:32.220,0:14:38.130
cleaning up their pollution for further delays.
Delay encourages companies to keep cash on
0:14:38.130,0:14:42.510
the sidelines instead of spending it and putting
people to work modernizing their facilities.
0:14:42.510,0:14:47.570
And most importantly, delay means public health
benefits of reducing harmful pollution are
0:14:47.570,0:14:50.829
not realized.
Thank you for allowing this opening comment.
0:14:50.829,0:14:52.079
I look forward to your questions.
0:14:52.079,0:14:55.639
[Mr. Jordan] Thank you, Mr. Deputy.
Let me just start with one of the things that
0:14:55.639,0:14:59.139
the ranking member referenced in his opening
statement, and I think you alluded to it as
0:14:59.139,0:15:06.139
well, was the jobs that can be created when
you have to refit and retool and make changes.
0:15:07.370,0:15:12.730
But what do you say and did you look at
this, this idea that there can also be job
0:15:12.730,0:15:17.850
loss? As I pointed out in my opening statement,
the National Association of Manufacturers,
0:15:17.850,0:15:22.740
they cite the number 7.3 million jobs they
believe that can be lost between 2020 and
0:15:22.740,0:15:26.649
2030. So did EPA look at all at the other
side?
0:15:26.649,0:15:30.250
Obviously, we know if you have got to retool
something, there has got to be someone to
0:15:30.250,0:15:35.529
come in and go to work, putting that structure
together in a different way, retrofitting,
0:15:35.529,0:15:39.740
doing what needs to be done. Obviously, that
is pretty easy to calculate. But did you look
0:15:39.740,0:15:45.260
at the other side of the ledger?
[Mr. Perciasepe] Yes. When we look at the
0:15:45.260,0:15:50.880
cost of rules, we look at all the different
aspects of it under the OMB regulations that
0:15:50.880,0:15:57.660
we are required to use. And I might say that
American industry and in particular the American
0:15:57.660,0:16:01.699
power industry has been becoming more and
more efficient. Over the last 10 years, even
0:16:01.699,0:16:05.250
without these rules, the amount of megawatts
that are produced continues to go up.
0:16:05.250,0:16:06.490
[Mr. Jordan] Every business has been doing
that.
0:16:06.490,0:16:09.470
[Mr. Perciasepe] Every business is doing this.
Oil refineries, power plants, the amount of
0:16:09.470,0:16:14.970
output continues to go up, but the number
of employees continues to go down as they
0:16:14.970,0:16:19.510
become more and more efficient over time with
more efficient plants. And some of the transition
0:16:19.510,0:16:25.860
that takes place when we enact these rules
is creating a more efficient fleet of powergenerating
0:16:25.860,0:16:28.070
units.
[Mr. Jordan] But I just want to be clear,
0:16:28.070,0:16:35.070
did you do what the executive order requires
you to do, which is a cumulative impact study
0:16:35.660,0:16:41.029
on I mean, I am reading right here from
the executive order, each agency shall tailor
0:16:41.029,0:16:46.199
its regulations to impose the least burden
on society, including businesses and individuals,
0:16:46.199,0:16:50.800
including businesses of differing sizes. Did
you comply with the executive order?
0:16:50.800,0:16:57.800
[Mr. Perciasepe] Yes. Yes. Excuse me.
When we propose a rule, like let's say the
0:16:59.220,0:17:04.659
Mercury and Air Toxics Rule, we start from
the base that includes the rules that have
0:17:04.659,0:17:09.739
already been done. And then we want to be
able to make sure we specify what the current
0:17:09.739,0:17:13.619
rule that we are proposing is actually going
to do for transparency purposes so we can
0:17:13.619,0:17:18.639
look at how that builds on the cumulative
impact of what has gone before.
0:17:18.639,0:17:25.639
[Mr. Jordan] Can you look at the statement
then on the screen? It should be in front
0:17:27.889,0:17:32.049
of you there on your screen.
[Mr. Perciasepe] Which RIA are we talking
0:17:32.049,0:17:35.879
about?
[Mr. Jordan] Coal ash. The coal ash rule.
0:17:35.879,0:17:42.830
[Mr. Perciasepe] I see at the bottom. I am
sorry. That proposal is out has been out,
0:17:42.830,0:17:49.830
and we have put out some additional requests
for information on that. That is quite a ways
0:17:50.289,0:17:53.269
away from being finalized.
[Mr. Jordan] Okay. Let me ask you this. Do
0:17:53.269,0:17:58.389
you think, though, that, a more general question,
do you think that there is ever a point where
0:17:58.389,0:18:05.389
regulation can in fact be a strong impediment
to job growth, and actually be actually
0:18:06.179,0:18:11.659
cost jobs, actually result in the reduction
of jobs? Do you think that is something that
0:18:11.659,0:18:16.369
should be kept clear in mind as we are proposing
new regulations?
0:18:16.369,0:18:20.759
[Mr. Perciasepe] Well, I think we have to
look at the economic impact of rules under
0:18:20.759,0:18:25.649
the executive order, as you have pointed out.
And that is what we do. And we also try to
0:18:25.649,0:18:28.289
do it based on the foundation of what has
already gone by.
0:18:28.289,0:18:35.289
But EPA also goes beyond that, particularly
under the Clean Air Act. We look at the cumulative
0:18:36.809,0:18:42.119
benefits and costs of the rule of all the
rules all together since the Clean Air Act
0:18:42.119,0:18:49.009
the amendments at least of 1990. So let's
say going back 20 years. Under section 812,
0:18:49.009,0:18:55.049
I think it is, of the Clean Air Act, we do
a cumulative benefit and cost analysis on
0:18:55.049,0:19:02.049
the entire implementation of the Clean Air
Act. And the cost and benefits so far, since
0:19:02.149,0:19:08.840
1990, are about ahead by about 30 to 1.
[Mr. Jordan] Can you take a look at this statement?
0:19:08.840,0:19:11.460
Because of these complexities, as well as
the limited time and resources within the
0:19:11.460,0:19:15.369
expedited schedule, we are limited in our
ability to quantify the cost and benefits
0:19:15.369,0:19:18.739
of obtaining separate secondary NAAQS for
ozone for this proposal. So that would seem
0:19:18.739,0:19:23.909
to indicate to me that you did not do a full
cumulative impact study because you say right
0:19:23.909,0:19:28.149
in your statement, cost and benefits. That
is what we are looking at. That is the whole
0:19:28.149,0:19:33.070
cumulative issue there. You seem to say you
are not complying with it in that statement
0:19:33.070,0:19:38.330
there.
[Mr. Perciasepe] Yes. So the National Ambient
0:19:38.330,0:19:44.979
Air Quality Standard is a standard. It is
not selfimplementing. What it does is it sets
0:19:44.979,0:19:51.399
in motion a planning process that goes on
for a number of years to identify where those
0:19:51.399,0:19:56.710
areas are in the country that would not be
meeting that standard, and then, what are
0:19:56.710,0:20:01.190
the implementation mechanisms that are used
to implement or to achieve that standard?
0:20:01.190,0:20:06.629
Each one of those requires that kind of detailed
analysis once we get to that point. But the
0:20:06.629,0:20:10.720
standard itself is a sciencebased standard
based on what
0:20:10.720,0:20:15.239
[Mr. Jordan] And does the EPA have any idea
what that standard is going to cost when implemented?
0:20:15.239,0:20:18.149
That is the point.
[Mr. Perciasepe] We do a regulatory impact
0:20:18.149,0:20:24.440
analysis that looks at the best estimate we
could make, because all the implementation
0:20:24.440,0:20:29.320
comes years later. We look at the best
[Mr. Jordan] And what was your best estimate
0:20:29.320,0:20:33.090
for this, for the NAAQS?
[Mr. Perciasepe] Our estimates of benefits
0:20:33.090,0:20:39.509
and cost went, depending on all the different
standards that were proposed by the
0:20:39.509,0:20:43.059
[Mr. Jordan] Can you give us a number? On
one hand, you are saying you are going to
0:20:43.059,0:20:47.109
create jobs for retrofitting the facilities,
but we want to know overall if you did an
0:20:47.109,0:20:51.679
estimate, what was the estimate on what it
was going to do to job creation or job loss?
0:20:51.679,0:20:57.200
[Mr. Perciasepe] We did the overall cost of
the rule. And the overall cost of the rule,
0:20:57.200,0:21:03.940
I will have to look it up for you what the
[Mr. Jordan] And obviously cost means
0:21:03.940,0:21:07.169
[Mr. Perciasepe] We did the costs and the
benefits in our proposal.
0:21:07.169,0:21:10.029
[Mr. Jordan] But additional costs to business
means it is going to be tougher to create
0:21:10.029,0:21:14.889
jobs. You would agree with that statement,
wouldn't you? Particularly if it is a big
0:21:14.889,0:21:18.279
number, which you can't give me.
[Mr. Perciasepe] Well, it depends on what
0:21:18.279,0:21:22.679
the final standard is, which we haven't yet
decided on. We haven't yet promulgated the
0:21:22.679,0:21:24.349
final.
[Mr. Jordan] One last question and then I
0:21:24.349,0:21:29.879
want to yield to our ranking member. Wouldn't
you agree, though, that all this coming at
0:21:29.879,0:21:35.320
once I mean you think about over the next
several years we have Cooling Water Intake
0:21:35.320,0:21:40.179
Structures, Utility MACT, the Transport Rule,
Coal Combustion Residuals, the ozone, I mean
0:21:40.179,0:21:45.139
all these different things, some starting
now but some more coming online soon, don't
0:21:45.139,0:21:48.820
you think that's a real cause for concern
and that it is critical that you be able to
0:21:48.820,0:21:53.909
provide an estimate and do the full cumulative?
I mean, you can obviously see the concern
0:21:53.909,0:21:58.379
that folks in this industry and this business,
which is so crucial to manufacturing and a
0:21:58.379,0:22:00.570
host of others, you can obviously see their
concern.
0:22:00.570,0:22:07.259
[Mr. Perciasepe] Yeah. Many of these rules
you just mentioned were actually proposed
0:22:07.259,0:22:14.259
in the past, and they were sent back to EPA
by the courts. The Air Transport Rule that
0:22:16.619,0:22:23.309
you mentioned, the air toxics Utility Air
Toxic Rule, those were proposed in the past
0:22:23.309,0:22:28.019
in the last decade, and now they have been
coming back and having to be reproposed. Things
0:22:28.019,0:22:32.580
like the ozone standard you mentioned get
implemented over a long period of time into
0:22:32.580,0:22:39.580
the future. And some of them, like the water
intake the water intake rules under the
0:22:42.749,0:22:48.940
Clean Water Act or the coal combustion rules
under the Resource Conservation Act, those
0:22:48.940,0:22:52.649
haven't been finalized yet.
[Mr. Jordan] But the point is it is all coming
0:22:52.649,0:22:56.779
and it is coming pretty quickly. Even if they
may have been proposed and they are gradual,
0:22:56.779,0:23:01.739
they are phasing in and phasing in at different
levels or higher levels, that's a concern.
0:23:01.739,0:23:08.099
[Mr. Perciasepe] Well, I will just respectfully
say I probably don't agree with that chart
0:23:08.099,0:23:11.619
that you just had up there.
[Mr. Jordan] I will yield to the gentleman
0:23:11.619,0:23:18.619
from Ohio.
[Mr. Kucinich] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
0:23:26.830,0:23:33.519
I think it is fair to say that the utility
industry is hysterical with claims that the
0:23:33.519,0:23:40.210
new EPA regulations are job killing. In contrast,
as the slide I would like to put up on the
0:23:40.210,0:23:44.729
screen shows, a report from the University
of Massachusetts entitled New Jobs, Cleaner
0:23:44.729,0:23:50.210
Air, says the home States of each member of
the Subcommittee on the Eastern Power Grid
0:23:50.210,0:23:54.109
would fare very well with respect to jobs
created by the new investment and capital
0:23:54.109,0:23:59.799
improvements. Our own State of Ohio will gain
as many as 76,240 jobs to build the capacity
0:23:59.799,0:24:04.139
to implement the new regulations in the first
5 years. So I would like to ask Mr. Perciasepe
0:24:04.139,0:24:09.879
how does the EPA's own risk assessment analysis
square up with these findings from the University
0:24:09.879,0:24:14.559
of Massachusetts?
[Mr. Perciasepe] I have to say I haven't looked
0:24:14.559,0:24:17.529
at this particular report.
[Mr. Kucinich] Okay. You don't have to comment
0:24:17.529,0:24:21.659
on it. Will your regulations destroy more
jobs or create more jobs?
0:24:21.659,0:24:26.559
[Mr. Perciasepe] Our analysis shows, particularly
on these utility rules, that it will create
0:24:26.559,0:24:27.779
jobs.
[Mr. Kucinich] Okay. We are going to hear
0:24:27.779,0:24:31.950
from industry representatives in the next
panel that claim that compliance with the
0:24:31.950,0:24:37.929
new Mercury and Air Toxic Standards and the
Transport Rule is not achievable and not costeffective.
0:24:37.929,0:24:41.950
These industry advocates are making claims
of dire economic consequences if we move forward
0:24:41.950,0:24:46.149
with these rules. Some of our witnesses today
will say that environmental protections will
0:24:46.149,0:24:52.190
cost too much money, kill too many jobs, end
their competitiveness. This is familiar. Industry
0:24:52.190,0:24:55.509
always claims the sky will fall if they have
to minimize the health and environmental harms
0:24:55.509,0:24:59.149
their business practices cause. We heard the
same thing from the auto industry when air
0:24:59.149,0:25:03.519
bags were required. We heard the same hysteria
when the Clean Air Act rules were passed in
0:25:03.519,0:25:07.299
1990.
Ford Motor Company said in 1990, we just don't
0:25:07.299,0:25:11.629
have the technology to comply with, quoteunquote,
the tailpipe requirement set forth in the
0:25:11.629,0:25:14.929
amendments. And yet they started making cars
that complied with the tailpipe requirements
0:25:14.929,0:25:18.409
in 1993.
Now, Mr. Perciasepe, can you talk about how
0:25:18.409,0:25:22.590
industry fared after the 1990 amendments?
Are there any lessons to be drawn here with
0:25:22.590,0:25:27.469
the new proposed rules? From your perspective,
is industry exaggerating the detrimental impacts
0:25:27.469,0:25:31.539
of the regulations?
[Mr. Perciasepe] Well, some of the studies
0:25:31.539,0:25:37.739
that we have been able to review have a number of
that they have done that demonstrate these
0:25:37.739,0:25:42.570
impacts have some significant flaws to them.
First of all, and I mentioned this in my opening
0:25:42.570,0:25:47.909
comments, they make assumptions about rules
that we haven't finalized yet. For instance,
0:25:47.909,0:25:52.919
on the cooling water regulation that we have
been talking about, some of those studies
0:25:52.919,0:25:59.519
have assumed that every power plant would
have to install a closed loop cooling system
0:25:59.519,0:26:02.109
or a cooling tower.
That is not what we proposed, and we still
0:26:02.109,0:26:09.109
haven't even finalized that rule. So these
end up causing exaggerated estimates of what
0:26:09.559,0:26:14.369
the costs of the rule would be. They don't
differentiate between plants that are getting
0:26:14.369,0:26:20.619
old and need to close or for economic and
business reasons, need to be phased out as
0:26:20.619,0:26:27.399
new generating capacity comes out versus ones
that might be associated with a rule that
0:26:27.399,0:26:34.399
EPA is proposing. They also don't include
the flexibilities that are in the Clean Air
0:26:34.940,0:26:41.409
Act that when you get when you actually
implement these rules, there are certain flexibilities
0:26:41.409,0:26:46.389
that are included in the Clean Air Act that
are not considered in these studies. So, by
0:26:46.389,0:26:50.879
definition, then, they come up with an exaggerated
estimate of what the impact would be.
0:26:50.879,0:26:55.529
[Mr. Kucinich] On July the 20th, 2011, the
Washington Times ran an oped by Steve Milloy,
0:26:55.529,0:27:01.659
the publisher of junkscience.com titled "Show
Us the Bodies, EPA." The subtitle reads, "Green
0:27:01.659,0:27:07.239
agency uses phony death statistics to justify
job killing rules."
0:27:07.239,0:27:12.359
The oped described a TV ad run by the Environmental
Defense Fund, saying, the TV ad for this theme
0:27:12.359,0:27:16.629
features a young girl in a hospital bed supposedly
having an asthma attack. She's wearing a nebulizer
0:27:16.629,0:27:21.339
face mask and chest compression device that
is rhythmically but disturbingly squeezing
0:27:21.339,0:27:25.799
the child, giving the appearance that she
is in severe respiratory distress, by implication
0:27:25.799,0:27:32.799
from air pollution. But like the EPA's 17,000livessaved
statistical fabrication, the ad's a fake.
0:27:33.070,0:27:40.009
Now, Mr. Perciasepe, I would like to give
you a chance to respond to this oped. It is
0:27:40.009,0:27:45.929
apparently aimed at EPA's proposed air toxics
rule. Are EPA's estimated benefits from the
0:27:45.929,0:27:52.929
proposed rule a statistical fabrication?
[Mr. Perciasepe] They are based on peerreviewed
0:27:53.440,0:27:59.089
science. They are not a statistical fabrication.
And you are not going to see on somebody's
0:27:59.089,0:28:02.799
death certificate, they died of air pollution.
They are going to die of the diseases that
0:28:02.799,0:28:09.799
air pollution exacerbates and causes premature
impacts. Even healthy people are impacted.
0:28:10.609,0:28:16.159
But people who are more vulnerable, like retired
folks, are going to be even more vulnerable
0:28:16.159,0:28:22.159
to these things, so the impact of the damage
on the lungs and the cardiovascular system.
0:28:22.159,0:28:26.849
So I know you have other witnesses that will
go into the science of this in more detail,
0:28:26.849,0:28:32.159
but these are not fabricated. They are based
on peerreviewed science, both clinical and
0:28:32.159,0:28:39.159
epidemiological studies.
[Mr. Kucinich] Mr. Milloy's oped also questioned
0:28:41.369,0:28:46.029
the public health impacts of mercury pollution.
He wrote, "but there is no evidence that ambient
0:28:46.029,0:28:50.619
levels of mercury or mercury emissions from
U.S. power plants have harmed anyone." Now,
0:28:50.619,0:28:55.849
Mr. Perciasepe, isn't there clear evidence
showing that mercury impairs the brain development
0:28:55.849,0:29:00.139
of infants and children?
[Mr. Perciasepe] There are mercury warnings
0:29:00.139,0:29:07.139
in every State for fish contaminated with
mercury. Mercury causes damage to developing
0:29:07.330,0:29:10.179
brains in children and fetuses.
[Mr. Kucinich] So is that a yes?
0:29:10.179,0:29:12.839
[Mr. Perciasepe] So yes.
[Mr. Kucinich] Okay. Can you describe why
0:29:12.839,0:29:17.129
it is important to control mercury pollution
from domestic power plants? Isn't there a
0:29:17.129,0:29:21.869
disproportionate impact on communities near
plants that emit mercury pollution?
0:29:21.869,0:29:27.369
[Mr. Perciasepe] The mercury emissions from
the power plants in the United States are
0:29:27.369,0:29:34.369
the largest remaining source in the United
States of mercury emissions. And they are
0:29:34.619,0:29:41.619
they affect the water. And the mercury bioaccumulates
in fish. And then fish get eaten by humans.
0:29:44.659,0:29:51.659
But I want to point out one last thing on
this point. The mercury and toxics rule is
0:29:53.919,0:30:00.919
not just mercury. It includes acid gases,
arsenic, nickel, cadmium, all these other
0:30:01.739,0:30:07.479
metals and acid gases that also have health
effects are included, which is why you have
0:30:07.479,0:30:12.099
to look at the broad impact of all those different
toxics, not just mercury, although mercury
0:30:12.099,0:30:14.149
is very important.
[Mr. Kucinich] Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman,
0:30:14.149,0:30:18.289
yield back.
[Mr. Jordan] Thank the gentleman.
0:30:18.289,0:30:24.710
Mr. Deputy, do you think your rules could
result in a higher cost for energy?
0:30:24.710,0:30:31.710
[Mr. Perciasepe] When we analyzed the cost
of our rules, and let's just use
the air toxics, the Utility MACT as you call
0:30:39.389,0:30:46.389
it here, of the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule,
we do estimate that it will have an increase
0:30:46.549,0:30:52.919
in electric rates and an increase in natural
gas rates. Those increases are expected to
0:30:52.919,0:30:56.339
be in the variability of historic levels of
these
0:30:56.339,0:30:59.889
[Mr. Jordan] I just want to be clear. So the
United States Environmental Protection Agency
0:30:59.889,0:31:06.539
admits that the rule changes will result in
higher electricity costs.
0:31:06.539,0:31:11.499
[Mr. Perciasepe] A very small increase in
electric costs. But actually, the electric
0:31:11.499,0:31:12.989
costs even with this rule
[Mr. Jordan] Let me be clear. You say there
0:31:12.989,0:31:18.399
is going to be an increase in cost for energy.
[Mr. Perciasepe] The increase in costs will
0:31:18.399,0:31:23.599
still the cost of electricity will be less
[Mr. Jordan] Is the answer yes or no to increased
0:31:23.599,0:31:25.999
energy?
[Mr. Perciasepe] If I could just answer it,
0:31:25.999,0:31:31.009
to answer your first question, it will be
the costs of electricity will still be less
0:31:31.009,0:31:38.009
than it was in 2009, even with the increase.
[Mr. Jordan] Then if there is going to be
0:31:40.459,0:31:46.909
increased energy costs, do you think that
can also translate into lost jobs or maybe
0:31:46.909,0:31:49.709
not as many jobs being created as otherwise
would have been?
0:31:49.709,0:31:52.849
[Mr. Perciasepe] I say
[Mr. Jordan] And we are talking, obviously,
0:31:52.849,0:31:56.899
we are talking people who use the energy.
[Mr. Perciasepe] I understand that. And I
0:31:56.899,0:32:02.159
want to be really clear, the baseline that
people currently pay for electricity is less
0:32:02.159,0:32:06.979
than it was several years ago. And this increase
will keep it, it still will be less than it
0:32:06.979,0:32:09.070
was several years ago. We do not see it having
an impact
0:32:09.070,0:32:13.179
[Mr. Jordan] Maybe you are missing the point.
What they are paying now, are your rules going
0:32:13.179,0:32:17.440
to make it I am not worried about 2009.
I am worried about now. We have 9.2 percent
0:32:17.440,0:32:21.379
unemployment now. So what they are paying
now, are the rules you are proposing going
0:32:21.379,0:32:26.899
to mean energy costs more? I thought the answer
was yes. Is that what you are saying? So,
0:32:26.899,0:32:31.879
furthermore, if the answer is yes, which it
is, then there could be some other results
0:32:31.879,0:32:36.320
or ramifications down the road for job creators
and businesses across the country at a time
0:32:36.320,0:32:41.399
we have 9.2 percent unemployment.
[Mr. Perciasepe] We do not see the small increase
0:32:41.399,0:32:45.950
in the price of electricity from this rule,
which is not different than the normal variation
0:32:45.950,0:32:49.509
in the prices over the last decade, to have
any significant impact.
0:32:49.509,0:32:53.820
[Mr. Jordan] You may not, but my guess is
small business owners, my guess is manufacturers
0:32:53.820,0:32:58.369
probably do. When they are faced with the
tough decision can I keep these families,
0:32:58.369,0:33:01.729
these individuals employed who their families
are relying on this, and I got to make decisions,
0:33:01.729,0:33:05.070
look at my bottom line, look at my fixed costs,
look at everything else, they probably do
0:33:05.070,0:33:09.369
see it as important. You may see it as not
important and negligible, but they probably
0:33:09.369,0:33:16.259
do. Let me ask you another question here.
Mr. Kucinich had the jobs created to retrofit
0:33:16.259,0:33:22.559
and retool. And you pointed to that, too.
But I guess I want to ask, this is the old
0:33:22.559,0:33:28.159
basic economics principle opportunity costs.
If you are not spending those dollars to retrofit
0:33:28.159,0:33:33.239
and retool your facility, you are probably
using them some other way, maybe to create
0:33:33.239,0:33:37.549
jobs, maybe to do other things. So would you
agree that while, sure, they are going to
0:33:37.549,0:33:42.839
have to there might be some jobs that are
created to retool and refit, that is money
0:33:42.839,0:33:45.820
that they could have used somewhere else but
for the fact that you are making them retool
0:33:45.820,0:33:48.450
and refit.
[Mr. Perciasepe] Well, first, it creates jobs
0:33:48.450,0:33:52.429
and permanent jobs, and second, it creates
all those health benefits I just mentioned.
0:33:52.429,0:33:55.179
It is hard to get that double benefit from other
investments.
0:33:55.179,0:33:58.519
[Mr. Jordan] But you would also agree with
the opportunity costs. When money is spent
0:33:58.519,0:34:01.809
one place, it can't be spent someplace else.
[Mr. Perciasepe] The costbenefit ratio of
0:34:01.809,0:34:08.809
this kind of expenditure is more than 5 to
1, 10 to 1.
Small businesses who could in theory be impacted
0:34:14.799,0:34:20.359
from small prices increase, this is such a
small increase, that it could be well within
0:34:20.359,0:34:24.339
their ability to make energyefficiency controls.
[Mr. Jordan] Again, it is always easy for
0:34:24.339,0:34:28.869
government to say that. It is much tougher
for the individual or the family or the business
0:34:28.869,0:34:31.460
owners that actually have to implement it.
[Mr. Perciasepe] They would actually save
0:34:31.460,0:34:35.789
money and be able to invest it in their business.
[Mr. Jordan] So wait a minute. So now you
0:34:35.789,0:34:38.639
are saying increased energy costs are actually
going to be a savings? How does that work?
0:34:38.639,0:34:45.639
[Mr. Perciasepe] Well, if they implement certain
very simple energy efficiency measures in
0:34:46.029,0:34:48.679
their own business that most business people
are looking at
0:34:48.679,0:34:50.740
[Mr. Jordan] I am sure they are doing that
if it makes sense on their own. They don't
0:34:50.740,0:34:53.460
need the government to tell them that to do
that.
0:34:53.460,0:34:57.220
[Mr. Perciasepe] That is right. I am just
saying that this is what normally would happen
0:34:57.220,0:34:59.730
in the normal business world.
[Mr. Jordan] I didn't expect to take 5 minutes.
0:34:59.730,0:35:04.619
I will be happy to yield back to the ranking
member. I am good on time. I can go to you
0:35:04.619,0:35:09.339
or I can go to the vice chair of the committee.
Okay. I thank the gentleman. We will now yield
0:35:09.339,0:35:13.269
to the vice chair of the committee, who is
actually going to take over for the chairman.
0:35:13.269,0:35:14.910
Thank you.
[Ms. Buerkle] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
0:35:14.910,0:35:21.910
And I apologize for missing the first round
of questions. Thank you for being here today
0:35:22.119,0:35:27.900
and your willingness to testify. In your analysis
for Utility MACT, you estimated that it could
0:35:27.900,0:35:34.900
lead to pollution controlrelated capital investment
of $45 billion to $50 billion and that this
0:35:34.950,0:35:41.950
could create 35,000 jobs per year by 2015.
[Mr. Perciasepe] I think our estimate is,
0:35:44.519,0:35:51.519
it is about $10 billion, I am sorry, in our
final rule. And our estimate is $10 billion,
0:35:53.799,0:36:00.799
and our estimate is about 31,000 temporary
jobs and about 9,000 permanent jobs.
0:36:01.440,0:36:08.440
I think I am right on that. I want to make
sure.
0:36:10.650,0:36:17.650
Total annual cost is $10.9 billion. The annual
benefits are about $59 billion to $140 billion.
0:36:18.640,0:36:25.150
So it is a 5 to 1 costbenefit ratio or 13
to 1 costbenefit ratio. I think I have the
0:36:25.150,0:36:29.059
job analysis right. I am sorry. I wanted to
make sure I gave the numbers that we had there.
0:36:29.059,0:36:30.619
[Ms. Buerkle] [Presiding.] Okay. So you are
saying
0:36:30.619,0:36:36.940
[Mr. Perciasepe] This could have been in the
proposal. But I am happy to dig into this
0:36:36.940,0:36:42.680
here for you, if I can.
[Ms. Buerkle] Well, if you would like to elaborate
0:36:42.680,0:36:47.380
or explain, because that is the information
we had. And you can see the cost per job
0:36:47.380,0:36:48.410
[Mr. Perciasepe] I see that.
[Ms. Buerkle] is ridiculous.
0:36:48.410,0:36:53.000
[Mr. Perciasepe] I would like to be able to
provide some information for you on that.
0:36:53.000,0:36:58.150
[Ms. Buerkle] Okay. Can you provide that information
today, or would you like to provide it
0:36:58.150,0:37:04.890
[Mr. Perciasepe] I have to I have to go
look at the technical support document and
0:37:04.890,0:37:09.539
see where but what I just gave you are the
numbers in the final proposal, $10.9 million
0:37:09.539,0:37:16.539
I am sorry, billion a year; 31,000 temporary
jobs; 9,000 permanent jobs. Benefits of $50
0:37:18.690,0:37:25.690
billion to $100 billion, including 7,000 to
17,000 premature deaths avoided, 11,000 nonfatal
0:37:29.569,0:37:36.569
heart attacks avoided. I am not going to read
them all. But this is what was the in the
0:37:38.490,0:37:43.670
final rule. The costbenefit of this is about
5 to 1, or at the high end of the range 13
0:37:43.670,0:37:46.920
to one.
[Ms. Buerkle] So what is your estimate that
0:37:46.920,0:37:50.079
the cost is per job?
[Mr. Perciasepe] The annual cost of the rule
0:37:50.079,0:37:55.140
is $10.9 billion, with ultimately around
9,000 permanent jobs.
0:37:55.140,0:38:02.140
[Ms. Buerkle] What does that cost per job?
[Mr. Perciasepe] Well, the purpose of the
0:38:05.400,0:38:12.400
rule is to achieve 17 avoid premature deaths
for 17,000 adults, 11,000 nonfatal heart attacks,
0:38:13.260,0:38:20.260
5,300 hospital admissions, 6,900 emergency
room admissions, 4,500 cases of chronic bronchitis,
0:38:21.510,0:38:28.010
11,000 cases of acute bronchitis. Those are
the things that we add as the benefit side.
0:38:28.010,0:38:31.480
[Ms. Buerkle] I understand all that. But if
you are using it as a justification because
0:38:31.480,0:38:36.190
it creates jobs, we have to look at the cost
per job and say, does that even make sense?
0:38:36.190,0:38:39.660
[Mr. Perciasepe] Well, we are looking at the
benefits of all these health benefits.
0:38:39.660,0:38:45.720
[Ms. Buerkle] I want to get onto just a different
topic here.
0:38:45.720,0:38:52.720
Recently, the EPA announced that it is going
to reconsider the ozone NAAQS standards established
0:38:52.930,0:38:59.930
in 2007. Can you explain or tell me why the
EPA decided to review and actually on an expedited
0:39:01.319,0:39:07.630
schedule? They are not really ready; the 2012
would be the appropriate time.
0:39:07.630,0:39:14.630
[Mr. Perciasepe] The ozone standard was last
proposed in 2008. And it was there was litigation
0:39:20.980,0:39:27.980
about it. And the standard that was proposed
was outside the range of the Clean Air Act
0:39:28.640,0:39:35.640
Scientific Advisory Committee that was set
up by the Clean Air Act. We saw that as legally
0:39:38.490,0:39:45.490
vulnerable, and so it was remanded back to
EPA by the court back in that time frame.
0:39:45.490,0:39:50.279
We have been working on it ever since. We
have proposed it, but we haven't yet finalized
0:39:50.279,0:39:56.980
it. It is in agency review right now. But
we haven't finalized the reconsideration of
0:39:56.980,0:39:59.859
the ozone standard.
[Ms. Buerkle] Are you under court order to
0:39:59.859,0:40:05.839
expedite the review?
[Mr. Perciasepe] There is a stay on the litigation
0:40:05.839,0:40:09.619
that eventually probably will be lifted by
the judge. But right now, we are acting under
0:40:09.619,0:40:16.619
a stay on the litigation, and with the understanding
that we would propose it by the end of July.
0:40:18.509,0:40:25.509
We have told the litigants as early as this
week that we are not going to be able to make
0:40:26.230,0:40:31.990
that July 29th deadline, and that we are
still in the interagency review process. We
0:40:31.990,0:40:34.950
are going to do it as soon as possible, but
it is still going to take some time.
0:40:34.950,0:40:40.349
[Ms. Buerkle] My concern with that is that
the environmentalists, rather than EPA and
0:40:40.349,0:40:44.200
the appropriate branches of government, are
establishing our environmental policy.
0:40:44.200,0:40:47.910
[Mr. Perciasepe] Well, we were sued by all
different litigants.
0:40:47.910,0:40:54.910
[Ms. Buerkle] My time has expired.
I yield 5 minutes to the ranking member, Mr. Kucinich.
0:40:56.170,0:41:03.170
[Mr. Kucinich] Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
0:41:04.619,0:41:10.930
Mr. Perciasepe, the House is currently debating
H.R. 2584, an appropriations act that included
0:41:10.930,0:41:16.099
a rider that blocks the EPA from implementing
its rule to control air toxic emissions, as
0:41:16.099,0:41:20.109
well as the CrossState Air Pollution Rule,
controlling interstate transportation of nitrogen
0:41:20.109,0:41:23.210
oxides and particulate matter emissions from
power plants.
0:41:23.210,0:41:29.259
Sir, if this legislation became law, what
impact would it have on EPA's ability to fulfill
0:41:29.259,0:41:33.799
its mandate under the Clean Air Act and implement
the air pollution rules covering pollution
0:41:33.799,0:41:39.849
from power plants?
[Mr. Perciasepe] Well, if you make the assumption
0:41:39.849,0:41:46.849
that those riders would not allow us to spend
funds in the budget on finishing the work
0:41:47.309,0:41:51.980
under those rules, it will delay further
it has already been delayed almost a decade
0:41:51.980,0:41:57.529
the health benefits and the certainty that
industry has said that they want.
0:41:57.529,0:42:00.460
[Mr. Kucinich] Can you quantify what those
health benefits were?
0:42:00.460,0:42:07.240
[Mr. Perciasepe] I just listed the ones for
the which I think is already in the record
0:42:07.240,0:42:14.240
in the answer to the vice chair. I will get
here in a minute from my able assistant the
0:42:15.359,0:42:18.730
actual numbers for the I probably have some
of them.
0:42:18.730,0:42:22.140
[Mr. Kucinich] While your able assistant is
gathering those numbers
0:42:22.140,0:42:26.400
[Mr. Perciasepe] From the CrossState Air Pollution
[Mr. Kucinich] Right. I would just like to
0:42:26.400,0:42:27.980
go over those numbers. Here we go. Number,
please.
0:42:27.980,0:42:34.980
[Mr. Perciasepe] Thank you. It is 13,000 to
34,000 premature mortalities; 15,000 nonfatal
0:42:36.990,0:42:43.990
heart attacks; 19,000 hospital emergency department
visits; 19,000 acute bronchitis events; 420,000
0:42:46.359,0:42:53.359
upper and lower respiratory symptoms; 400,000
aggravated asthma; and 1.8 million days when
0:42:53.849,0:43:00.599
people will miss work or school. Those are
the benefits that will be delayed, along with
0:43:00.599,0:43:03.259
the ones that
[Mr. Kucinich] Is that delayed on an annual
0:43:03.259,0:43:06.349
basis, or is that delayed on a 10year basis,
or what?
0:43:06.349,0:43:12.490
[Mr. Perciasepe] Annual. Annual. Yes.
[Mr. Kucinich] Has EPA ever done a quantification
0:43:12.490,0:43:18.440
of that in terms of the dollar cost to the
economy then if people are sick? You know,
0:43:18.440,0:43:22.119
it is expensive.
[Mr. Perciasepe] Well, the monetized benefits
0:43:22.119,0:43:29.119
from those annualized health benefits I just
listed, and that was for the CrossState Rule,
0:43:31.220,0:43:38.220
are $120 billion to $280 billion a year.
[Mr. Kucinich] So what is the monetized cost
0:43:40.339,0:43:47.339
to public health? So you are saying that that
is the cost of the benefit if you have the
0:43:50.190,0:43:57.190
rule and the rule goes into place; people's
health is protected. And on the other side,
0:43:58.480,0:44:05.480
if you don't have the rule, that represents
a loss or a cost that is being absorbed by
0:44:06.559,0:44:12.109
people in terms of an attack on their health.
So in a way and that is what you are saying,
0:44:12.109,0:44:13.089
right?
[Mr. Perciasepe] Yes.
0:44:13.089,0:44:20.089
[Mr. Kucinich] Okay. So let's look at it this
way. I mean, this is the way I look at it
0:44:20.170,0:44:27.170
anyway. If these rules don't go into place,
$128 billion, is it, annually?
0:44:27.450,0:44:34.029
[Mr. Perciasepe] That is the low end.
[Mr. Kucinich] The low end, $128 billion annually,
0:44:34.029,0:44:41.029
is the cost in terms of human health. Or as
you said, if it is correct that it is a benefit.
0:44:44.230,0:44:51.230
But it is a cost now because the rules aren't
in place. So these companies are making profits.
0:44:56.960,0:45:03.960
And here is the point. If you have environmental
conditions that are aggravating human health,
0:45:04.410,0:45:09.920
and the EPA is trying to mitigate those conditions
with a rule, and those conditions are not
0:45:09.920,0:45:16.920
resolved and the industry keeps building their
profit margins while having not to make any
0:45:22.859,0:45:28.519
investments at all in cleaning up the environment
so there wouldn't be these untoward health
0:45:28.519,0:45:35.519
effects, what you actually have is a direct
transfer of wealth in terms of the cost of
0:45:37.339,0:45:44.339
human health from the mass of people to the
utilities.
0:45:44.529,0:45:51.529
This, I think, is one of the underlying problems
that I have with the fact that utilities refuse
0:45:53.339,0:46:00.339
to abide by rules that protect human health.
Because people pay for it. People actually
0:46:00.549,0:46:07.450
subsidize the profits of the utilities with
the public's health. So that $128 million
0:46:07.450,0:46:13.480
or billion ends up a payment that people make
with their health. And in a sense, it is a
0:46:13.480,0:46:18.000
transfer of wealth to the utilities. That
is just not fair. It just isn't. And it is
0:46:18.000,0:46:23.859
manifestly unjust. I find it morally offensive.
And while I am with my colleagues in being
0:46:23.859,0:46:30.859
concerned about jobs, look, how many people
and their families have to spend so much of
0:46:31.230,0:46:36.470
their time taking care of the illness of a
loved one who may have their illness exacerbated
0:46:36.470,0:46:39.579
because of air pollution?
I yield back.
0:46:39.579,0:46:46.579
[Ms. Buerkle] Thank you, Ranking Member Mr. Kucinich.
I have a couple more questions. And I just
0:46:51.009,0:46:55.359
want to say something about what the ranking
member just brought up. And I think, you know,
0:46:55.359,0:47:00.240
I have spent my whole life in the health
I am a nurse. I was a health care attorney.
0:47:00.240,0:47:05.680
So I am very concerned about health, public
health. And I don't think anyone on either
0:47:05.680,0:47:09.599
side of the aisle is saying we don't need
regulations.
0:47:09.599,0:47:15.819
But what we need is reasonable regulations,
regulations that encourage people to be entrepreneurial,
0:47:15.819,0:47:21.509
encourage people to take a risk, not thinking
that they will be beat down, and when they
0:47:21.509,0:47:26.150
do comply with regulations that, you know,
around the next corner, those regulations
0:47:26.150,0:47:28.740
are changed, so then they have to retrofit
and they have to recomply.
0:47:28.740,0:47:34.339
The cost of compliance, as I talk to small
businesses throughout the district, it is
0:47:34.339,0:47:40.009
exorbitant. And it really is a deterrent for
people to take the risk and to go into business.
0:47:40.009,0:47:45.259
So I think all we are talking about here and
we are asking the EPA is to be reasonable,
0:47:45.259,0:47:50.749
to understand that every one of those new
regulations, every one of those regulations
0:47:50.749,0:47:57.599
that get put into a book have an effect. They
filter down to some poor small business owner
0:47:57.599,0:48:02.799
whose bottom line and his profit margin is
very slim. And one more change or one more
0:48:02.799,0:48:07.029
law to comply with, or one more regulation
may be what puts him over.
0:48:07.029,0:48:12.329
And I think that is more and if we look
at it that way, we are talking about public
0:48:12.329,0:48:16.430
health, but we are also balancing it with
a 9.2 unemployment rate in this country. We
0:48:16.430,0:48:22.490
have got to look at this thing in its entirety.
You look like you wanted to comment.
0:48:22.490,0:48:29.339
[Mr. Perciasepe] You know, those are very
reasonable words. And I think we share the
0:48:29.339,0:48:34.190
desire to make sure these rules are implemented
in an appropriate way. We are trying to provide
0:48:34.190,0:48:41.190
time in the rules, flexibility with trading,
allowance trading. EPA has other flexibilities
0:48:43.079,0:48:50.079
if things get tight on a reliability front.
The other side of the coin is also trying
0:48:50.319,0:48:57.319
to make sure that there is a clear path. These
rules have been lingering for a decade. And
0:48:58.200,0:49:05.200
we are in this parallel universe of people
saying we need certainty so we can make investments,
0:49:06.430,0:49:11.049
but if we create the certainty, then there
is too much that we think we might have to
0:49:11.049,0:49:13.930
do.
And the truth of the matter is you need know
0:49:13.930,0:49:18.410
where you you need have that path of where
to go, but at the same time, we need to have
0:49:18.410,0:49:21.240
the flexibilities that are available in the
Clean Air Act.
0:49:21.240,0:49:28.240
And I think this country can do it. It has
been able to do it. GDP has gone up 205 percent
0:49:30.579,0:49:37.380
since the Clean Air Act was enacted, while
pollution has gone down almost 60 over 60 percent.
0:49:37.380,0:49:44.380
These last increments are really going to
pay dividends in public health. And we need
0:49:45.420,0:49:48.109
to make sure we do use the flexibilities that
are in the Clean Air Act.
0:49:48.109,0:49:51.289
[Ms. Buerkle] Thank you.
I only have 2 minutes left, so I have one
0:49:51.289,0:49:56.400
more question here.
The Assistant Secretary of Energy James Wood
0:49:56.400,0:50:03.400
stated that, number one, electric rates are
going to go up. And I would like you to comment
0:50:03.499,0:50:07.940
on that. I mean, do you agree with him that
electric rates are going to go up? And I will
0:50:07.940,0:50:14.910
enter Mr. Wood's article into the record,
without any objection.
0:50:14.910,0:50:21.779
[Mr. Perciasepe] Well, our regulatory impact
analysis that we have done on let's just say
0:50:21.779,0:50:28.779
these two rules indicate that electric rates
will go up from a base that is lower than
0:50:28.930,0:50:35.930
it was in the last decade. So the variability
in the electric rates are going to be small
0:50:36.259,0:50:41.259
compared to the variability of the electric
rates we had before these rules were out there.
0:50:41.259,0:50:48.259
That said, when we do when we did work on
some of these rules, we definitely used the
0:50:50.640,0:50:57.240
small business panels to help us look at the
impact on small business, how the rule how
0:50:57.240,0:51:01.960
small business could accommodate the rule.
So we have looked at those things as well.
0:51:01.960,0:51:08.960
But there is a slight increase in the electric
rates on an average across the country. And
0:51:10.319,0:51:13.859
we have identified that in our regulatory
impact. We are not hiding that fact. We are
0:51:13.859,0:51:15.980
trying to put it in context.
[Ms. Buerkle] I don't mean to interrupt, but
0:51:15.980,0:51:20.069
my time is clicking away here.
I will say your estimate came in the lowest
0:51:20.069,0:51:24.799
of anyone's estimate as to what their electrical
rates will do. And again, that goes back to
0:51:24.799,0:51:30.829
jobs and job creation and small businesses.
I mean, it may be a few pennies, but it may
0:51:30.829,0:51:34.670
not be a few pennies. It may be more than
that. And that may be the one single factor
0:51:34.670,0:51:39.650
that pushes either deters someone from going
into business, the cost of doing business,
0:51:39.650,0:51:45.359
or worse yet, it forces them out of business
because they can't meet their bottom line.
0:51:45.359,0:51:52.359
With that, my time has expired.
We are going to do another round of questions.
0:51:54.990,0:52:01.990
I yield 5 minutes to the ranking member.
[Mr. Kucinich] Mr. Perciasepe, American Electric
0:52:04.569,0:52:08.859
Power claims the cost of complying with the
regulations affecting power plants will result
0:52:08.859,0:52:15.130
in an increase in electricity prices of 10
to 35 percent. According to EPA's own regulatory
0:52:15.130,0:52:19.999
impact analysis for the final Transport Rule,
the agency's economic model suggests an average
0:52:19.999,0:52:25.599
national price increase for energy is 0.16 percent,
just a fraction of 1 percent.
0:52:25.599,0:52:29.859
Under the Toxics Rule, the agency's economic
model suggests the average national price
0:52:29.859,0:52:35.680
increase for energy is 0.8 percent. This
is a long way off from 10 to 35 percent.
0:52:35.680,0:52:39.579
Can you explain the discrepancy between AEP's
figures and your own?
0:52:39.579,0:52:45.269
[Mr. Perciasepe] I haven't studied how they
came up with those estimates.
0:52:45.269,0:52:52.269
But I would say that EPA has been historically
able to estimate impacts of our rules, and
0:52:55.509,0:53:01.509
we are even conservative in our impacts on
how we estimate our impacts on rules. So it
0:53:01.509,0:53:07.049
could have been any number of things that
they have included in their assumptions that
0:53:07.049,0:53:08.880
we would have to look at.
[Mr. Kucinich] Well, why don't you obtain
0:53:08.880,0:53:14.720
the information and get back to this subcommittee
so that we can make an evaluation of their
0:53:14.720,0:53:16.140
claim?
Thank you. I yield back.
0:53:16.140,0:53:21.130
[Ms. Buerkle] Thank you.
With that, we will all our second panel to
0:53:21.130,0:53:25.740
the witness table. And thank you very much
for being here today and for offering your
0:53:25.740,0:53:28.329
testimony and your information to us.
[Mr. Perciasepe] Thank you both, and thank
0:53:28.329,0:53:35.329
the chairman.
[Ms. Buerkle] Good afternoon.
0:55:09.660,0:55:14.099
Thank you for being here. Our second panel
consists of Ms. Janet Henry, who is the deputy
0:55:14.099,0:55:21.099
general counsel for American Electric Power;
Dr. Joel Schwartz, professor of environmental
0:55:21.130,0:55:27.059
epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health;
and Mr. Mike Carey, president of the Ohio
0:55:27.059,0:55:29.450
Coal Association.
[Ms. Buerkle] Good afternoon and welcome to
0:55:29.450,0:55:34.410
all of you. Pursuant to the rules of the Oversight
and Government Reform Committee, if I could
0:55:34.410,0:55:41.259
ask you to stand and please raise your right
hands. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that
0:55:41.259,0:55:44.930
the testimony you are about to give this committee
will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
0:55:44.930,0:55:50.279
but the truth? Let the record reflect that
the witnesses answered in the affirmative.
0:55:50.279,0:55:51.539
Thank you very much.
[4:18 p.m.] RPTS MERCHANT DCMN SECKMAN
0:55:51.539,0:55:55.910
[Ms. Buerkle] I would ask that each of our
witnesses if you could limit your opening
0:55:55.910,0:56:00.940
statements to 5 minutes. I know that the ranking
member has an amendment to offer on the floor,
0:56:00.940,0:56:05.140
and I would like to give him the opportunity
to lead off the first round of questions before
0:56:05.140,0:56:08.089
he has to leave.
So, Ms. Henry, if you would proceed, I would
0:56:08.089,0:56:14.960
appreciate it.
[Ms. Henry] Thank you Vice Chairman Buerkle,
0:56:14.960,0:56:16.160
Ranking Member Kucinich and members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for giving me the
0:56:16.160,0:56:21.470
opportunity to testify regarding the impacts
of EPA's suite of new regulatory requirements
0:56:21.470,0:56:26.589
for the public utility sector.
AEP is one of the Nation's largest generators
0:56:26.589,0:56:31.539
with nearly 38,000 megawatts of generating
capacity and serves more than 5 million retail
0:56:31.539,0:56:38.539
customers in 11 States. We employ diverse
kinds of generating of energy sources, including
0:56:40.920,0:56:47.130
coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, natural gas,
oil and wind power. But coal is important
0:56:47.130,0:56:52.249
in our States, and approximately twothirds
of our generating capacity utilizes coal to
0:56:52.249,0:56:56.579
generate electricity.
We believe that the current regulatory track
0:56:56.579,0:57:01.150
being pursued by the EPA will have damaging
impacts on our Nation's electricity system,
0:57:01.150,0:57:06.400
as well as broader negative employment and
economic implications. Together they will
0:57:06.400,0:57:11.529
require very large capital utility investments
on a very short timeframe.
0:57:11.529,0:57:18.529
AEP has already achieved substantial SO2 and
NOx reductions over the past two decades beginning
0:57:19.539,0:57:24.589
with the acid rain program in the 1990s and
continuing with the NOx SIP Call in the Clean
0:57:24.589,0:57:31.589
Air Interstate Rule. AEP's SO2 emissions have
been reduced by over 1.1 million tons. That's
0:57:31.730,0:57:37.930
about a 73 percent reduction in emissions.
And our NOx emissions have been reduced by
0:57:37.930,0:57:43.920
80 percent over that same time period.
In just the past 10 years, AEP has invested
0:57:43.920,0:57:50.920
over $5 billion in emissions control equipment
on our coal units to reduce SO2 and NOx. About
0:57:51.180,0:57:56.599
twothirds of our fleet is currently equipped
with the most efficient SO2 controls and about
0:57:56.599,0:58:02.190
threequarters of the fleet in the eastern
system has the most advanced NOx controls.
0:58:02.190,0:58:07.150
Two projects were completed in the last 18 months
at our Amos power plant, and we are preparing
0:58:07.150,0:58:13.309
to submit applications for regulatory approvals
to install additional controls in Indiana.
0:58:13.309,0:58:18.289
We expect this transformation to continue
and our emissions to continue to decline.
0:58:18.289,0:58:23.839
We are committed to working with EPA in the
development of future control requirements,
0:58:23.839,0:58:29.859
but we have concerns about EPA's proposals.
They include the infeasibility of the compliance
0:58:29.859,0:58:35.489
deadlines. The CrossState Air Pollution Rule
will take effect in less than 6 months, and
0:58:35.489,0:58:41.930
the reductions in several States required
by 2012 represent more than a 30 percent
0:58:41.930,0:58:48.930
reduction in emissions over 2010 emission
levels. Multiple regulatory programs are going
0:58:49.140,0:58:56.140
to be taking effect in a very compressed timeframe,
resulting in unprecedented capital expenditures,
0:58:56.400,0:59:03.400
mostly before 2015. There would be two to
three times as much capital spent in the U.S.
0:59:03.549,0:59:10.549
to comply with these new EPA rules by 2020
as has been spent over the past 20 years.
0:59:11.349,0:59:17.579
Abrupt and significant power plant retirements
are likely to occur due to high costs and
0:59:17.579,0:59:23.450
infeasible compliance deadlines. We expect
that between 50 and 110 gigawatts of coalfired
0:59:23.450,0:59:29.619
generating capacity will retire due to the
proposed EPA rules. And with those retirements
0:59:29.619,0:59:36.619
come increased risks of unanticipated electric
grid problems, particularly during the 2014
0:59:36.690,0:59:41.279
to 2016 period.
The greatest capacity reductions are anticipated
0:59:41.279,0:59:48.279
to occur in the PJM region, which recently
experienced an alltime high peak, and the
0:59:48.569,0:59:52.160
SERC region, which is in the southeastern
portion of the country.
0:59:52.160,0:59:58.849
But both ERCOT and SPP have also expressed
concerns about the localized effects on the
0:59:58.849,1:00:04.059
electric grid. There will be very high electricity
rate increases, as has been observed by the
1:00:04.059,1:00:10.930
committee members, and significant job losses
associated with the implementation of these
1:00:10.930,1:00:14.670
rules.
According to a recent study by NERA, the CrossState
1:00:14.670,1:00:21.670
Rule and the Utility MACT rule will result
in over 1.4 million net job losses in the
1:00:23.829,1:00:28.329
U.S.
There's a better way. We would like to see
1:00:28.329,1:00:35.200
more holistic analysis of EPA's regulatory
programs in an effort to coordinate the implementation
1:00:35.200,1:00:41.400
of these requirements that can be phased in
reasonably over a slightly more extended period
1:00:41.400,1:00:48.069
of time and achieve the same environmental
outcomes. That time will reduce the impact
1:00:48.069,1:00:51.239
on our customers and the economy. Thank you.
1:00:51.239,1:00:53.599
[Ms. Buerkle] Thank you, Ms. Henry.
[Mr. Carey]
1:00:53.599,1:01:00.599
[Mr. Carey]
Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Kucinich,
members of the committee, good afternoon.
1:01:04.450,1:01:08.489
Thank you for inviting me to testify today
at this very important hearing.
1:01:08.489,1:01:13.799
The effects the EPA's pending and planned
proposals will have on electricity prices,
1:01:13.799,1:01:19.759
employers, domestic workers will be devastating.
My name is Mike Carey. I am president of the
1:01:19.759,1:01:24.880
Ohio Coal Association. We are an association
that provides a voice for the many thousands
1:01:24.880,1:01:31.619
of citizens working in Ohio's coal sector.
Cheap affordable coal is what powers the manufacturing
1:01:31.619,1:01:37.670
base and maintains our families across the
Midwest and other regions of America.
1:01:37.670,1:01:42.749
The companies we represent, both large and
small, are proud to directly employ over 3,000
1:01:42.749,1:01:48.809
individuals as well as the 30,000 additional
secondary jobs that depend on our sector.
1:01:48.809,1:01:53.849
These jobs and hundreds of more or thousands
more are at risk directly because of the decisions
1:01:53.849,1:01:59.920
under way by the EPA.
In particular, it is my hope that this committee
1:01:59.920,1:02:05.210
will undertake a serious review of the work
being conducted by the EPA as it relates to
1:02:05.210,1:02:10.259
the following proposals: The CrossState Air
Pollution Rule, formerly known as the Clean
1:02:10.259,1:02:17.049
Air Transport Rule; the Air Toxic Standards
for Utilities or Utility MACT; the New Source
1:02:17.049,1:02:22.049
Performance Standard Changes, the New Ozone
Particular Matter Standards; Regulation for
1:02:22.049,1:02:27.940
Coal Combustion Residuals; and the Power Plant
Cooling Water Intake Structure Rule.
1:02:27.940,1:02:32.049
Members of this body have probably heard this
grouping of proposals called the EPA Train
1:02:32.049,1:02:37.880
Wreck. The regulatory wave embodied in these
new mandates and rules above stands to cause
1:02:37.880,1:02:43.200
great harm not only to Ohio but to the rest
of the American economy. Today coal is mined
1:02:43.200,1:02:49.960
in over 27 States across the Nation and is
consumed in over 48 as reliable and affordable
1:02:49.960,1:02:52.799
power.
I will focus my time today on the two most
1:02:52.799,1:02:58.859
harmful EPA proposals. The first the CrossState
Air Pollution Rule. The underlying assumption
1:02:58.859,1:03:04.309
of this proposal, Mr. Chairman, is that our
customers, the electric utilities, like American
1:03:04.309,1:03:09.420
Electric Power, like First Energy and Duke
Energy, will simply move to a lower sulfur
1:03:09.420,1:03:13.630
content coal. That assumes that companies
will even continue to use coal in the first
1:03:13.630,1:03:19.819
place. They could fuel switch to natural gas.
This ultimately could disrupt the natural
1:03:19.819,1:03:24.279
gas markets.
This administration proposes to sacrifice
1:03:24.279,1:03:29.650
these 33,000 primary and secondary jobs that
we create, and that is as simple as it gets.
1:03:29.650,1:03:35.759
EPA's complex rule creates a system of allowances
and trading that is much less flexible than
1:03:35.759,1:03:41.079
the current regulatory framework. Winners
and losers are thus clearly chosen, and Ohio
1:03:41.079,1:03:47.210
is a loser. The only option for those producing
electricity in our state, as we have already
1:03:47.210,1:03:51.519
seen in many cases, is to shut down or potentially
shut down their plants.
1:03:51.519,1:03:56.869
The second most harmful proposal in our view
is the Utility MACT Rule. When the proposals
1:03:56.869,1:04:03.400
are both finalized the national and regional
impacts will be devastating. Ohio alone will
1:04:03.400,1:04:10.400
lose 53,000 jobs, and electricity prices could
certainly spur and hurt the middle and lower
1:04:10.930,1:04:17.690
class Americans, which already pay almost
16 to 22 percent of their annual aftertax
1:04:17.690,1:04:23.130
income on energy costs annually.
The future of Midwestern jobs and access to
1:04:23.130,1:04:29.239
affordable energy depends on demanding that
the EPA examine the cumulative impacts of
1:04:29.239,1:04:36.210
their regulatory proposals. Oversight for
how these flawed proposals are costly, unworkable
1:04:36.210,1:04:40.960
and harmful to the U.S. economy should continue.
In the interim, Congress must seek to enact
1:04:40.960,1:04:46.019
policies that address the flaws in the EPA's
proposals that I have outlined.
1:04:46.019,1:04:51.809
EPA's war on coal will also be harmful to
the homeowners across the country. As the
1:04:51.809,1:04:56.789
studies have shown, the Train Wreck will result
in electricity prices that would increase
1:04:56.789,1:05:03.789
13 percent in Ohio, 23 percent in Tennessee
and 17 percent in Pennsylvania. Now, I understand
1:05:04.119,1:05:07.940
that this week the House will take up the
spending measures that will reduce the EPA's
1:05:07.940,1:05:13.339
funding by 18 percent. My concern is that
the EPA will simply find a way to shuffle
1:05:13.339,1:05:17.869
around the funds, and such a cut will not
stop their plans to move forward with the
1:05:17.869,1:05:21.309
Train Wreck.
It is the belief of the Ohio Coal Association
1:05:21.309,1:05:27.109
that Congress must be bolder, delay these
rules immediately. It is critical, and the
1:05:27.109,1:05:31.869
House must then act to write legislation that
makes these rules more reasonable. Without
1:05:31.869,1:05:38.299
a clear direction from Congress in this fashion,
EPA will continue its toward pace of piling
1:05:38.299,1:05:44.239
on new job crushing policies. I want to thank
you for the opportunity to testify, and I
1:05:44.239,1:05:47.089
stand ready to answer any questions the committee
may have.
1:05:47.089,1:05:50.579
[Ms. Buerkle] Thank you, Mr. Carey.
Dr. Schwartz, if you would proceed.
1:05:50.579,1:05:56.160
[Mr. Schwartz] Thank you, Madam Chairman,
Mr. Kucinich.
1:05:56.160,1:06:01.529
Certainly the regulations that we have heard
about, like the Transport Rule, will impose
1:06:01.529,1:06:06.660
significant costs on industry, but they will
also produce significant health benefits,
1:06:06.660,1:06:13.660
and I would like to talk a bit about that.
Particulate matter is one of the largest avoidable
1:06:15.509,1:06:22.509
causes of death in the United States. To put
that in perspective, particulate matter kills
1:06:24.650,1:06:31.650
more people each year in the United States
than AIDS, breast cancer and prostate cancer
1:06:33.380,1:06:39.519
put together. That is a big number. And the
difference is we don't know how to cure AIDS,
1:06:39.519,1:06:46.519
breast cancer and prostate cancer, but we
do know how to put scrubbers on coalburning
1:06:48.109,1:06:52.859
power plants. And so it is important to think
about it in that respect.
1:06:52.859,1:06:59.859
And this is not just my opinion, this is a
worldwide scientific consensus. In 2005, the
1:07:01.289,1:07:08.289
World Health Organization said that particulate
matter killed 800,000 people a year in the
1:07:09.239,1:07:16.239
world's cities alone. The American Medical
Association has endorsed these conclusions,
1:07:17.269,1:07:24.039
as has the American Thoracic Society, the
American Cancer Society, the American Heart
1:07:24.039,1:07:28.979
Association.
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
1:07:28.979,1:07:35.979
has extensively reviewed EPA's science assessment
for particles over the last several years
1:07:37.440,1:07:44.440
and concluded that the association with mortality
was causal, that the risk assessment was sound,
1:07:44.829,1:07:51.829
except they said that what EPA cited as their
high estimate was actually a midrange estimate
1:07:52.609,1:07:58.319
because there were lots of studies that showed
bigger effects. The National Academy of Sciences
1:07:58.319,1:08:04.779
in the United States has endorsed this conclusion
in two separate reports.
1:08:04.779,1:08:11.779
In 2005, the European Union proposed the strategy
to reduce particles because their scientific
1:08:13.650,1:08:20.650
review concluded it killed a lot of people,
and their strategy was to impose an 82 percent
1:08:22.210,1:08:28.679
reduction in SO2 emissions, primarily by retrofitting
scrubbers on coalburning power plants.
1:08:28.679,1:08:35.679
So this is really a consensus view of the
worldwide scientific community. And the reasons
1:08:38.029,1:08:44.730
they believe that are simple. We have lots
of studies in the scientific literature to
1:08:44.730,1:08:51.000
support this. We have studies that compare
death rates in more polluted towns and less
1:08:51.000,1:08:55.089
polluted towns, and they are higher in more
polluted towns.
1:08:55.089,1:09:02.089
We have studies that have looked at changes
in particle concentrations in cities and changes
1:09:03.589,1:09:09.699
in their death rates. And the more the particle
concentrations drop, the more the death rates
1:09:09.699,1:09:16.699
drop in those locations. We have studies that
have then said, well, let's forget about those
1:09:17.029,1:09:23.699
downward trends and let's look at just yeartoyear
fluctuations around the downward trend in
1:09:23.699,1:09:30.659
particles, and yeartoyear fluctuations in
death rates went with those changes in particles.
1:09:30.659,1:09:37.659
We have studies that looked at strikes and
found that death rates fell when major industries
1:09:38.429,1:09:43.190
that were important sources of air pollution
were shut down, and went back up when they
1:09:43.190,1:09:48.480
were turned on again.
And then buttressing all of this we have studies
1:09:48.480,1:09:55.480
from animals that show that if you expose
animals over a period of months to particles
1:09:57.500,1:10:04.500
compared to filtered air, that they develop
much more atherosclerosis and the atherosclerotic
1:10:05.050,1:10:12.050
plaques become much less stable and more likely
to rupture, and it has been done in multiple
1:10:12.219,1:10:18.630
studies. We have animal studies showing that
if you produce ischemia in animals and expose
1:10:18.630,1:10:25.010
them to particles, the blood flow to the heart
is reduced further compared to one's breathing
1:10:25.010,1:10:30.810
filtered air. We have studies showing that
you can produce arrhythmias in animals by
1:10:30.810,1:10:35.630
exposing them to particles.
So, in addition to all of the human studies,
1:10:35.630,1:10:42.630
we have a great deal of toxicology that backs
this up. And this is why review committee
1:10:42.980,1:10:49.310
after review committee and scientific body
and medical body after medical body have all
1:10:49.310,1:10:55.070
come to the conclusion that this is really
happening. And the numbers that we are talking
1:10:55.070,1:11:02.070
about are quite large. So the midrange number
from EPA's expert elicitation or from what
1:11:05.570,1:11:12.570
Case Act said, says that the Transport Rule
will save 34,000 early deaths per year. That
1:11:13.480,1:11:20.480
is a really big deal. And yes, it costs money,
but actually, the cost per life saved is about
1:11:20.840,1:11:27.840
$100,000 a life, and that is actually pretty
cheap among public health interventions that
1:11:28.150,1:11:34.210
are available to us.
So I think that these are important issues,
1:11:34.210,1:11:39.480
but it is important to realize that there
are very important public health benefits
1:11:39.480,1:11:45.300
that will result from putting these controls
on. Thank you.
1:11:45.300,1:11:49.050
[Ms. Buerkle] Thank you, Dr. Schwartz.
I am going to yield the ranking member 5 minutes
1:11:49.050,1:11:51.860
for questions.
[Mr. Kucinich] I want to thank the gentlelady
1:11:51.860,1:11:55.800
for her indulgence. I am going to have to
leave as soon as I am through with the questions.
1:11:55.800,1:12:00.010
I am offering an amendment on the floor. I
am very grateful for your kindness.
1:12:00.010,1:12:06.380
At a June 1, 2011, meeting with investors
when discussing the risk of closures to plants
1:12:06.380,1:12:13.360
as a result of EPA rules, the chairman of
AEP Michael Morris told investors the following:
1:12:13.360,1:12:19.340
As you know, those are highcost plants. Throughout
almost all of 2009 those plants probably didn't
1:12:19.340,1:12:24.320
run 5 percent of the time because of natural
gas prices. When we shut those down, there
1:12:24.320,1:12:27.780
will be some cost savings as well, and on
balance, we think that is the appropriate
1:12:27.780,1:12:30.239
way to go.
That is the sum and substance of what was
1:12:30.239,1:12:36.150
said. Now, what CEO Morris is saying is that
AEP has already had to shut down certain coalburning
1:12:36.150,1:12:42.340
power plants due to competitive pressure from
lower cost natural gas. These are the same
1:12:42.340,1:12:47.630
plants that would have to be retrofitted or
shut down to comply with EPA regulations.
1:12:47.630,1:12:53.940
Now, Ms. Henry, if AEP is already shutting
down these same plants because they are high
1:12:53.940,1:13:00.940
cost and are uncompetitive in the market,
how can you come here today and portray EPA's
1:13:01.400,1:13:06.260
rules as infeasible and blame the EPA for
forcing a large number of premature power
1:13:06.260,1:13:12.110
plant requirements?
[Ms. Henry] Thank you, Ranking Member Kucinich.
1:13:12.110,1:13:18.449
The plants referred to in the chairman's remarks
and the plants referred to in the studies
1:13:18.449,1:13:25.320
that have been conducted as a result of EPA's
rules are not necessarily the same plants.
1:13:25.320,1:13:29.219
I think that we will need to go back and look
at the plants that the chairman was referring
1:13:29.219,1:13:30.239
to.
[Mr. Kucinich] So you are saying you really
1:13:30.239,1:13:33.010
don't know which plants he is talking about,
is that right?
1:13:33.010,1:13:34.790
[Ms. Henry] I am not certain of the universe
of plants he's talking about.
1:13:34.790,1:13:37.280
[Mr. Kucinich] Okay. We would like you to
provide that information to this committee.
1:13:37.280,1:13:40.860
[Ms. Henry] If I could respond.
[Mr. Kucinich] No. You don't know the answer,
1:13:40.860,1:13:45.989
so I am going to ask my next question.
If the price of natural gas relative to coal
1:13:45.989,1:13:50.260
stays where it was at the time your CEO is
explaining his decision to close certain plants
1:13:50.260,1:13:56.820
and that price stays the same through 2014,
isn't it a fact that AEP will keep those plants
1:13:56.820,1:14:00.739
closed through 2014?
[Ms. Henry] If the price of natural gas stays
1:14:00.739,1:14:04.630
at the current rates
[Mr. Kucinich] Right. At the time right.
1:14:04.630,1:14:09.580
[Ms. Henry] As the time the chairman was making
[Mr. Kucinich] Will those plants stay closed?
1:14:09.580,1:14:15.690
[Ms. Henry] The plants were running at lowcapacity
factors; they were not closed. And those plants
1:14:15.690,1:14:21.900
run during times of peak energy demand and
are used to respond to needs for additional
1:14:21.900,1:14:27.090
power on days like we experienced this past
week. Having those plants available to respond
1:14:27.090,1:14:30.400
to those peak demands is critical to the integrity
of the electrical grid.
1:14:30.400,1:14:35.440
[Mr. Kucinich] So what you are saying is that
those plants are specifically part of meeting
1:14:35.440,1:14:42.440
peak demands and they are otherwise totally
efficient and not subject to market fluctuations
1:14:45.360,1:14:48.699
that would come about as a result of natural
gas competition?
1:14:48.699,1:14:52.810
[Ms. Henry] Certainly if the price of natural
gas were to increase significantly, their
1:14:52.810,1:14:57.820
capacity factors might go up because their
dispatch might be more economic than the gas
1:14:57.820,1:15:04.820
plants that run also at peak periods of time.
But I think that the critical point is that
1:15:07.110,1:15:11.099
the plants provide both that peak capacity
reserve and also supply
1:15:11.099,1:15:13.869
[Mr. Kucinich] Well, if natural gas costs
more. But what if natural gas costs less?
1:15:13.869,1:15:19.030
Would it likely be that those plants would
be out of capacity because they are not able
1:15:19.030,1:15:22.199
to compete with natural gas?
[Ms. Henry] That would depend upon the availability
1:15:22.199,1:15:25.860
of those plants and other plants on the system
to respond to that peak.
1:15:25.860,1:15:30.449
[Mr. Kucinich] Did AEP lay off those workers
at the plants that had to close due to lowerpriced
1:15:30.449,1:15:32.889
natural gas, or did you find other assignments
for them?
1:15:32.889,1:15:38.380
[Ms. Henry] Some of the workers were part
of a voluntary severance program that we conducted
1:15:38.380,1:15:41.659
last year in response
[Mr. Kucinich] So they were voluntarily separated,
1:15:41.659,1:15:43.119
they weren't laid off, is that what you are
saying?
1:15:43.119,1:15:45.449
[Ms. Henry] That is right.
[Mr. Kucinich] So they lost their jobs?
1:15:45.449,1:15:50.260
[Ms. Henry] There will be an additional 600
jobs lost when those plants are finally closed.
1:15:50.260,1:15:57.260
[Mr. Kucinich] Ms. Henry, AEP is the author
of a bill entitled Electric Power Regulatory
1:15:58.179,1:16:03.460
Coordination Act of 2011, is that correct?
[Ms. Henry] I don't think there is
1:16:03.460,1:16:07.670
[Mr. Kucinich] You haven't heard that? Okay.
Are you familiar with a bill by that name?
1:16:07.670,1:16:14.230
[Ms. Henry] I am not familiar with a bill
by that name.
1:16:14.230,1:16:21.230
[Mr. Kucinich] Madam Chair, I am going to
ask unanimous consent to put this report by
1:16:26.449,1:16:32.730
the NACP and other groups in about the situation
in Ohio with respect to coal and electric
1:16:32.730,1:16:34.739
utilities.
[Ms. Buerkle] Without objection.
1:16:34.739,1:16:41.739
[Mr. Kucinich] Are you familiar Ms. Henry
with a draft, discussion draft circulated
1:16:42.880,1:16:49.880
that has been dubbed the Electric Power Regulatory
Coordination Act of 2011, that would halt
1:16:50.510,1:16:57.510
implementation of the Nation's clean air laws?
[Ms. Henry] I am not familiar with the specific
1:16:57.560,1:17:00.010
draft that you are referring to.
[Mr. Kucinich] You never heard of that?
1:17:00.010,1:17:01.949
[Ms. Henry] No.
[Mr. Kucinich] You have no knowledge whatsoever
1:17:01.949,1:17:08.449
of any kind of discussion draft that relates
to a bill by that name?
1:17:08.449,1:17:15.429
[Ms. Henry] I know that AEP assisted in the
preparation of some suggested language for
1:17:15.429,1:17:22.429
legislation that might have had that impact.
[Mr. Kucinich] That is what I am talking about.
1:17:23.780,1:17:30.780
This bill proposes to wait another 6 years
before we limit toxic mercury from some power
1:17:31.110,1:17:36.320
plants as well as delaying limits on a host
of other dangerous pollutants, is that not
1:17:36.320,1:17:37.780
correct?
[Ms. Henry] That would be an incorrect characterization.
1:17:37.780,1:17:40.260
[Mr. Kucinich] Pardon?
[Ms. Henry] That would be an incorrect characterization
1:17:40.260,1:17:44.989
of the language that AEP proposed.
[Mr. Kucinich] Wait. You just told me are
1:17:44.989,1:17:48.030
you familiar with this bill or not? Do you
know the bill or don't you? You are just giving
1:17:48.030,1:17:52.449
me a response that it is an incorrect characterization
of a bill that you weren't really sure about.
1:17:52.449,1:17:55.730
[Ms. Henry] I said I am not familiar with
whatever
1:17:55.730,1:17:58.730
[Mr. Kucinich] Okay. I withdraw my question,
Madam Chair.
1:17:58.730,1:18:05.619
I am going to submit questions in writing
so that Ms. Henry can become familiar with
1:18:05.619,1:18:10.060
the questions that we are concerned about.
And also she can familiarize herself with
1:18:10.060,1:18:14.420
her own understanding of this draft discussion
that I am asking about. I appreciate it. Thank
1:18:14.420,1:18:20.599
you.
[Ms. Buerkle] Without objection.
1:18:20.599,1:18:27.599
[Ms. Buerkle] Okay. I will yield myself 5
minutes for questions.
1:18:33.239,1:18:37.030
First of all, Ms. Henry, I want to give you
the opportunity, it seemed to me you had an
1:18:37.030,1:18:41.099
answer to the ranking member's question that
you weren't allowed to give. If you wanted
1:18:41.099,1:18:43.900
to early in his line of questioning, he was
speaking to you.
1:18:43.900,1:18:50.070
[Ms. Henry] If I could continue my response,
I would appreciate it. Thank you.
1:18:50.070,1:18:57.070
The legislation that AEP was discussing with
certain Members of Congress would have provided
1:18:57.429,1:19:03.020
for a phasedin program to allow sufficient
time in order for all of the controls that
1:19:03.020,1:19:08.550
are required by the various EPA proposals
to be phased in over a slightly longer period
1:19:08.550,1:19:15.550
of time than is proposed under the CrossState
Air Pollution Rule and the Utility MACT Rule.
1:19:15.690,1:19:21.270
Instead of having all of the requirements
become final and effective in 2014, there
1:19:21.270,1:19:28.050
would have been an extension through 2020
and a phasedin program with specific levels
1:19:28.050,1:19:31.830
of control required to be achieved throughout
that time period.
1:19:31.830,1:19:37.400
[Ms. Buerkle] Thank you.
And this question is for Ms. Henry, as well
1:19:37.400,1:19:42.630
as Mr. Carey. The EPA time lines to comply
with these regulations, is it realistic or
1:19:42.630,1:19:46.380
unrealistic?
[Ms. Henry] Based on our experience, it is
1:19:46.380,1:19:51.260
an unrealistic timeframe for the installation
of the very sophisticated controls that are
1:19:51.260,1:19:56.530
necessary to control the types of coals that
are produced in many of our States, including
1:19:56.530,1:20:03.530
Ohio. FGD systems, flue gas desulfurization
systems, and SCR systems are required to achieve
1:20:04.580,1:20:11.580
the levels that are set forth in the EPA regulations
for SO2 and NOx and also to achieve the cobenefits
1:20:11.699,1:20:15.810
of mercury reductions from those same power
plants.
1:20:15.810,1:20:19.090
[Ms. Buerkle] Thank you.
[Ms. Henry] And those require about 4 and
1:20:19.090,1:20:22.449
a half to 5 years to complete.
[Ms. Buerkle] Mr. Carey.
1:20:22.449,1:20:29.449
[Mr. Carey] I would agree with I would agree
with her analysis of how that would affect
1:20:30.150,1:20:34.639
the powerproducing facilities. And what that
actually would do for the coal producers of
1:20:34.639,1:20:40.210
the State would be a removal of us from the
marketplace because they simply could not
1:20:40.210,1:20:46.219
meet the timeframes, as I mentioned, go to
a lower sulfur coal and/or possibly switching
1:20:46.219,1:20:52.969
to natural gas.
[Ms. Buerkle] Can each of you comment just
1:20:52.969,1:20:58.909
briefly, because I want to get to this line
of questioning with regards to these compliance
1:20:58.909,1:21:02.340
timelines, how many jobs can you estimate
would be lost?
1:21:02.340,1:21:09.340
[Ms. Henry] Based on the comprehensive analysis
that was done by NERA, we estimate that about
1:21:11.520,1:21:18.020
1.4 million net job losses would occur in
the United States through the time period
1:21:18.020,1:21:23.219
2020 as a result of these regulations. And
the two regulations we are talking about are
1:21:23.219,1:21:29.079
the CrossState Air Pollution Rule and the
Utility MACT Rule. The impacts are probably
1:21:29.079,1:21:34.590
more severe than that based on the final rule
because NERA did its analysis on the proposed
1:21:34.590,1:21:38.340
rule and not the final rule.
[Ms. Buerkle] And if you had more time to
1:21:38.340,1:21:41.340
comply, would that affect the number of jobs
lost?
1:21:41.340,1:21:47.369
[Ms. Henry] Yes, it would because we would
be able to moderate the electricity rate increases
1:21:47.369,1:21:53.880
associated with the installation of the controls
and spread that over a longer period of time.
1:21:53.880,1:21:56.530
[Ms. Buerkle] Thank you.
And the same two questions to you, Mr. Carey.
1:21:56.530,1:22:02.179
[Mr. Carey] According Madam Chair, according
to the NERA study, it alone, that loss of
1:22:02.179,1:22:07.489
those jobs just because of those two proposals,
would be 53,000 direct jobs in the State,
1:22:07.489,1:22:13.179
of which many of those jobs would come from
the Appalachian coal fields because of the
1:22:13.179,1:22:17.510
direct jobs in the mining industry and the
up to 11 spinoff jobs that occur from one
1:22:17.510,1:22:20.760
coal mining job, so the numbers would be significant
in that region.
1:22:20.760,1:22:27.000
[Ms. Buerkle] And again, if there is longer
time for compliance, will that affect the
1:22:27.000,1:22:30.190
number of jobs lost?
[Mr. Carey] Madam Chair, I think certainly
1:22:30.190,1:22:36.300
that could affect ultimately the amount of
coal that we could continue to put into those
1:22:36.300,1:22:40.280
power producing facilities, so yes.
[Ms. Buerkle] Thank you.
1:22:40.280,1:22:46.820
Now, can either or both of you actually comment
on what this will do to electricity rates?
1:22:46.820,1:22:52.420
You heard in the previous panel of the testimony
that it will raise slightly, but I would like
1:22:52.420,1:22:55.840
to hear your thoughts about what it will do
to the electricity rates.
1:22:55.840,1:23:01.869
[Ms. Henry] Well, the EPA analysis has been
done on an average basis nationwide and not
1:23:01.869,1:23:07.520
on an individual company basis. Obviously,
those companies that are most dramatically
1:23:07.520,1:23:12.560
impacted by the rules bear the highest cost
of compliance, and their rates increase the
1:23:12.560,1:23:15.190
most.
For the AEP companies, the rate increases
1:23:15.190,1:23:21.690
we have estimated range from 10 percent at
the lowest end of the range to almost 35 percent
1:23:21.690,1:23:25.380
in those areas most highly impacted.
[Ms. Buerkle] Thank you.
1:23:25.380,1:23:29.340
[Mr. Carey]
[Mr. Carey] Madam Chair, I think if you look
1:23:29.340,1:23:33.949
at in my testimony, I outline what NERA also
said, was that if you break it down by State,
1:23:33.949,1:23:39.159
the average cost for electric rates for certain
States across the country, in particular,
1:23:39.159,1:23:45.280
Ohio is at 13 percent; 23 percent in Tennessee;
and 17 percent in Pennsylvania. So you can
1:23:45.280,1:23:50.310
just go down the list and all of the States
would see there will be regional variances
1:23:50.310,1:23:53.210
in the cost of the electricity increase, but
definitely all increasing.
1:23:53.210,1:23:59.110
[Ms. Buerkle] Thank you.
I want to ask one more question of the two
1:23:59.110,1:24:04.239
of you, and then Dr. Schwartz, I don't want
you to feel left out here this afternoon.
1:24:04.239,1:24:10.820
The EPA is a singular regulatory body and
yet we see so many regulations coming out
1:24:10.820,1:24:17.820
of it from so many various agencies and departments.
I would like for you to comment and Mr.
1:24:19.300,1:24:23.119
Carey, I can start with you, and then Ms.
Henry have you seen any signs that there
1:24:23.119,1:24:30.119
is a coordination of or a look at how all
of these regulations affect businesses? I
1:24:30.520,1:24:37.380
mean one regulation by itself may not be bad,
but cumulatively, they may devastate businesses,
1:24:37.380,1:24:43.420
and that is why we are here today, our concern
for what this cumulative effect is doing for
1:24:43.420,1:24:46.199
jobs and job creation. So if you could comment
on that, I would appreciate it.
1:24:46.199,1:24:49.360
[Mr. Carey] Certainly, Madam Chair. I don't
think there is any doubt that we are seeing
1:24:49.360,1:24:54.570
in the coal fields of not just Ohio, but I
think West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Illinois,
1:24:54.570,1:25:00.119
Kentucky, you are seeing a coordinated attack
because the new restrictions on certain coal
1:25:00.119,1:25:06.159
permits, the fact that the U.S. EPA is getting
involved in a lot of the processes that normally
1:25:06.159,1:25:10.880
would have taken place under the State EPA
or the State permitting program. You are seeing
1:25:10.880,1:25:17.880
that Federal, that Federal go into the States,
start revoking permits, as happened in the
1:25:17.929,1:25:24.030
State of West Virginia. So what you have is
systematically, you have the U.S. EPA not
1:25:24.030,1:25:28.770
allowing for coal to be permitted to get out
of the ground and then ultimately trying to
1:25:28.770,1:25:34.480
take away the market that the coal could go
to. So I guess you could say that the EPA
1:25:34.480,1:25:39.810
believes that they can control both the laws
of supply and demand ultimately to the detriment
1:25:39.810,1:25:43.210
of the entire country.
[Ms. Buerkle] Thank you.
1:25:43.210,1:25:49.030
[Ms. Henry]
[Ms. Henry] The EPA regulations are analyzed
1:25:49.030,1:25:53.190
in a silo.
Each individual requirement is analyzed only
1:25:53.190,1:25:59.139
for its individual cost and benefits, and
there is no comprehensive analysis undertaken.
1:25:59.139,1:26:06.139
That results in a failure to consider the
cumulative impacts at any individual facility,
1:26:07.179,1:26:14.179
let alone across an industrial sector.
And for an example, the suite of regulations
1:26:15.770,1:26:20.079
that are currently before us include not only
the air pollution regulations, but also the
1:26:20.079,1:26:26.460
cooling tower requirements and the coal combustion
residuals rulemaking. Each of those rules
1:26:26.460,1:26:33.460
has its own costs, and all of them would be
considered by a utility before any investment
1:26:33.770,1:26:40.770
would be made to determine whether the longterm
viability of the facility is justified. So
1:26:41.349,1:26:48.349
it is essential that EPA not only do cumulative
analyses within an individual office or division,
1:26:49.940,1:26:55.320
like the air division, but that it take a
holistic view of all of the regulatory programs
1:26:55.320,1:26:58.849
that are coming out of the various offices
within EPA.
1:26:58.849,1:27:04.860
[Ms. Buerkle] Thank you very much.
Dr. Schwartz, in your testimony, you talk
1:27:04.860,1:27:11.860
a lot about the negative health effects of
particulate matter. And I want to clarify
1:27:11.969,1:27:18.969
if primarily particulate matter is regulated
by MACTs? Is that correct?
1:27:19.239,1:27:26.239
[Mr. Schwartz] Well, there is a MACT for particulate
matter, but then there are also new source
1:27:27.090,1:27:31.150
performance standards and, you know, best
available control technology and a bunch of
1:27:31.150,1:27:38.150
other regulations as well.
The transport rule is primarily being put
1:27:39.320,1:27:46.320
out to help States come into attainment with
the MACTs because we know that particles don't
1:27:47.250,1:27:53.940
actually stop at State borders. And so the
Clean Air Interstate Rule that was originally
1:27:53.940,1:28:00.940
proposed was for the purpose of doing that.
The MACT, I think, is an entirely different
1:28:02.409,1:28:06.810
thing that has nothing to do with the ambient
air quality standard.
1:28:06.810,1:28:13.360
[Ms. Buerkle] Well, the concern is that there
was a duplication in the count of particulate
1:28:13.360,1:28:20.360
matter, you know, to make the case, you know.
[Mr. Schwartz] Oh. So, I mean, I haven't read
1:28:24.780,1:28:31.780
every document that EPA has produced, but
certainly when EPA did the regulatory impact
1:28:32.840,1:28:39.840
analysis for the ongoing round of revision
of the ambient air quality standards for particles,
1:28:43.190,1:28:49.690
they said, what if we got particle levels
down to some point and what might be the costs
1:28:49.690,1:28:56.690
and the benefits of that in their risk assessment.
They didn't specifically propose rules that
1:28:59.170,1:29:06.030
would accomplish that, but they implicitly
assumed that one of the rules that was going
1:29:06.030,1:29:13.030
to be providing a lot of the help was the
transport rule. So if you looked at the benefits
1:29:14.869,1:29:19.599
of those two things and added them up, that
would be incorrect. It would also be incorrect
1:29:19.599,1:29:25.139
if you looked at the cost of those two things
and added it up. The transport rule is one
1:29:25.139,1:29:31.639
of the strategies that EPA is proposing to
help come into attainment with the current
1:29:31.639,1:29:38.210
MACTs and with any future MACTs. And so it
should be a sub category under there for both
1:29:38.210,1:29:41.409
costs and benefits.
[Ms. Buerkle] Thank you.
1:29:41.409,1:29:48.349
Ms. Henry, I want you to comment if you could
on whether it is fair that the EPA essentially
1:29:48.349,1:29:55.349
double counted the benefits.
[Ms. Henry] Madam Vice Chair, I think that
1:29:55.579,1:30:02.579
the primary objection that we have to EPA's
benefits analysis is that for the CrossState
1:30:02.579,1:30:09.579
Air Pollution Rule, EPA assumed that current
requirements that apply to our facilities
1:30:11.880,1:30:18.349
under the Clean Air Interstate Rule don't
exist, so they started from an artificial
1:30:18.349,1:30:25.349
baseline and overstated the benefits that
would be achieved through the CrossState Rule.
1:30:25.820,1:30:32.400
With respect to the Utility MACT Rule the
benefits that are affiliated with reducing
1:30:32.400,1:30:39.400
the hazardous and toxics air emissions under
that rule amount to negligible benefits compared
1:30:41.829,1:30:48.829
to the costs. The costs are, as I think the
chairman stated previously, about $10.7 billion
1:30:51.119,1:30:57.349
per year, and the benefits are around $50 million
associated with reductions in mercury.
1:30:57.349,1:31:04.349
EPA claimed it could not quantify any benefits
associated with any other individual hazardous
1:31:04.579,1:31:11.579
air pollutant, but they did quantify benefits
associated with reductions in particulate
1:31:11.679,1:31:17.310
matter, and those are the benefits that they
claim are achieved through the reductions
1:31:17.310,1:31:24.159
of the Utility MACT Rule.
[Ms. Buerkle] Thank you. Mr. Carey would you
1:31:24.159,1:31:31.159
like to comment on that.
Well, with that, since there are no other
1:31:31.989,1:31:36.800
members here for questioning, I would like
to thank all three of you for being here this
1:31:36.800,1:31:41.619
afternoon for being willing to answer our
questions and to testify.
1:31:41.619,1:31:48.199
I think the chairman called this committee.
Our concern is always that regulations are
1:31:48.199,1:31:52.159
putting such burdens on businesses in our
country. And given the unemployment rate,
1:31:52.159,1:31:59.159
we have a responsibility to act responsibly.
And as I mentioned to the previous panel,
1:31:59.929,1:32:05.540
that no one is saying we don't need regulations,
but we need reasonable regulations that don't
1:32:05.540,1:32:10.570
put companies out of business, that create
barriers to their success, that you know,
1:32:10.570,1:32:16.449
we see compliance and then we see new regulations
that require retrofitting. So I thank you
1:32:16.449,1:32:20.570
all for being here today.
And with that, this hearing is adjourned.
1:32:20.570,1:32:21.780
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:58 p.m., the subcommittee
1:32:21.780,1:32:22.079
was adjourned.]
1:32:22.079,1:32:22.329
�